Skip to main content

Full text of "Quality of life"

See other formats


FL3 

Alachua 

.G142 

30 

1973/2 

c.2 




<?u..///f 



•4 l-A. 



ft: ~» tfs* 0« 'y 






x 



*"^ r 






^ i ! I 



Quality of Life: An 



of Environmental and Social Indicators 

V 





fis 



Of 
** *'* j? 

'"'"♦.♦♦.•it. % * 



5: Of : I 



LU 



1973 



Gainesville, Florida 
Department of Community Development 



/^-o3 -00/ - ocJ& o / 2(o 



QUALITY OF LIFE: 
An Analysis of Environmental 
and Social Indicators, 1973 



dg*ss3X 




m\\m0 



DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 



GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 



The preparation of this report was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, CPA FL-04-30-1018. 



City Commission 



Department of Community Development 



James G. Richardson, Mayor-Commissioner 

Richard T. Jones,* Mayor-Commissioner 

Neil A. Butler 

Courtland Collier* 

Joseph W. Little 

Russell W. Ramsey 

W. S. Talbot 

Plan Board 

Samuel Holloway, Chairman 

Michael Adams* 

Thomas Coward 

Dr. James W. Crews 

Dr. Ira J. Gordon 

John Jennings 

Forrest F. Lisle, Jr. 

Herrick Smith* 

Mrs. Daniel Ward 



Norman J. Bowman, Director 
Dottie Hunt, Secretary HI 

Planning Division 

Richard A. Kilby, Director 

Richard W. Collins, Planner m 

T. Jeff Browning, Planner II* 

Randolph A. Long, Planner II 

Daniel E. Slater, Planner II 

John V. Carlson, Planner I 

V. Miles Patterson, Graphics Coordinator 

Louie Wilson, Administrative Clerk 

Chaque L. Russell, Planning Aide I 

Elaine Fletcher, Secretary n 



City Manager 

B. Harold Farmer 



♦Former Members 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Abstract 

List of Tables ^ 

List of Maps ^ 

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO QUALITY OF LIFE STUDY x 

Society and Community 2 

Urban Renewal Programs 3 

Analysis of Environmental and Social Indicators 6 

What is Quality of Life? 7 

Urban Indicators ^ 

Definition of an Urban Indicator g 

Problems in Utilizing Social Indicators g 

History of the Slum Dweller from a Socio-Economic Point of View 21 

Chapter 2 BASIC STUDY METHODOLOGY 17 

Data Base 17 

i 



Correlations 18 

Regression Equations 19 

Factor Analysis 19 

Z-Scores 20 

The Study Model 20 

Conclusions 21 

Chapter 3 AN INTRODUCTION TO GAINESVILLE 23 

Chapter 4 QUALITY OF HOUSING 29 

Results of Correlations 31 

Possible Areas of Future Investigations 32 

Chapter 5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS 35 

Results of Correlations 36 

Possible Areas of Future Investigations 40 

Chapter 6 FAMILY DISORGANIZATION AND INDIVIDUAL DEVIATION 42 

Results of Correlations 44 

Possible Areas of Future Investigations 49 

ii 



Chapter 7 HEALTH 51 

Results of Correlations 52 

Possible Areas of Future Investigations 52 

Chapter 8 EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT 57 

Results of Correlations 58 

Possible Areas of Future Investigations 62 

Chapter 9 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSES 64 

Z-Scores 64 

Multiple Regression Analysis 69 

Factor Analysis -81 

Factorial Ecology 82 

A Factorial Ecology for the City of Gainesville 83 

A Factorial Ecology Using the Social Indicators 86 

The Factor Score 88 

Chapter 10 Recommendations 93 



in 



Appendices lig 

Scattergrams of Housing Quality Variables 

References 



IV 



to 

to 

CO 

en 
O 

o 

03 3 



EJ. & 

O <" 

3 £ 

03 c 

CD 5 

a s 

ST 3 



o 
03 
a 

CO 

*3 

3 

OQ 
Pi 

CD 

a 



o 
3 E4 

03 CD 



OP 

I- 1 ' 

a> 

to 

to 
(-• 



o 

CO 
CD 

< 
o 

CD 



ros? 





n 
C 


L - 


2: 


2 


Zi 


n 


'— 


o~ 


p - 




— 


> 


( . 


> 


CO 




yi 


CO 




co 








T1 


u 


-n 








m 


-i 


W 


O 


sr 


O 



33 CO 



O 

■o 

ft 

a 



o 

3 

03 
I— » 

o 

Ml 

CD 



CO 
O 
O 



3 
P- 
o 

03 

r-t- 
O 

CO 
r+ 

3 



• 10 

p 13 1— 1 

^1 r+ 

p -•• 3 

g.H,03 



— CD 

1* 

-r " 

5 3 

3 X 

CD 

.a 

3. CD 



^CD 

n 



o u O 

w 3 



^8 

»-• « 

<£ 8 

►Hi "3 

CD r-r 

03 3 

r+ pj 

3 >— 

^ «-• 

en cu 

o >-■ 

•H, (13 

,* cr 



q § g 
3 a £ 

°- 3. 2. 

j-j- cd w 

o a 5. 

o "* S 

Hj Ml W 

a. cn »a 

CD O CD 

3 3 H. 



CD 



CD 

ro 

o 

«-'• 03 

2L o 



«T » & 



o 
cr 

►— • 
CD 

3 



-g 1 

-.-CD 

3 

W 

" o" 

?B 

Pa 

D !-L 
fi 

-3 

W 

•-+1 
03 
O 
r* 
O 



n 


cu 




n 


r-t- 




tr 


n 


0J 


M 


«-► 






m 


ID 


n 


UJ 


n 




CD 



CD ™ 

3 * 

E ro 

3 H 

CD CD 
H 



CD 



3 < 
« ro 

W r+ 

3 ° 

" 2. 
o 3 

o «-•■ 

a s. 

cr 

03 

cn 



03 5 a 

aq ro g 

CD C/3 

2 O CD 

a 03 cd 

3 1— i-{ 
CD ^ 

N 3 

o cr ro 

o ro ^ 

►2 3 ro 

T3 3 aq 

co w H 

4 "' CD 
Hh cn 
cu cn 

r+ O 

o 3 

- H CD 

!-• 03 J3 

3 3c 

a 03 £ 

o vj P. 

cd cn O 

co g- 3 

_. cn 

3- ^ S 
° S3 



M Ml 

ro BJ 

»— ■ 3 

03 P. 

o ^ 

3 p, 

cn 3t 

tr cn 

•"■• o 

cn aq 

ES 3 

3 B. 

cn g 

•-! O 

CD 3 

3 ^i 

aq - 



CD < ^ > 
O Q3 —r er 



&"g 



3^ 
en 



03 



3 F* 



03 
r+ 
M« 

o 
3 

03 



03 

cr 



CD 



3 cr 

£, CD 



O ° 

§§« 

ro E} & 
cd ro 
^7 



ST ro ^ 

2 o cd 

" o 01 

"« cT S* 

3 aq 3 

O ^ 03 

3 

UP 



O 
3 
cn 

5* cu 

►& 3 

•a cu 

cn P- 

cr cn 

ro cd 

5" cn 

ro ^ 

2 CD 

3 h 

03 "3 

>-t CD 

03 h4, 

cr o 

sr *- 

CD g 

CD 

a 



s 



3 
o 

3 . 

S" ro 03 

° cn El 

03 CD 

en o 1— . 

_ 3 ro 

o oq „, 

^ o i-< 

cd ro 

g &• 

03 3 o 

5". cn 3; 

3 ° ^ 

03 ►"•■ o 

3- 0^ >-h 

O CJ Q3 

tr 03 3. 

CD 3* CD 

< o m 

3 ° ^. 

3 on m 

CD "-■• »-* 

•1 CD CD 

r w ^ 

- ^ 03 

3 . cn 

5. » a) 

03 ; 3 

^ 03 

3 1 t3 ^ 

g" 2 S. 

3- o cr 

03 c v: 

< cn . 

O 3 S 



r+ ^ oq •<; 



CD 

3 03 

o cn 



i-i- CD 
3- CD 

N 

3 

t— '- 

3 

CD 

cr 
o 



3 ^3 3 

cn co Qi 

»-■■ H{ 

< I 

CD 



H 
CD 

aq 

CD 

cn 
cn 
3- tr 



o £ n 

H tr CD 

3-^ g 

ro - £ 

SL k- cn 

. ^ 03 



„, cn 
3 



a 



03 
03 

3 



^ « S Sf 

03 <-" CD "o 

3* C/D W m 

5" 2 S S. 

oq co 3 ^ 

Cf m 8 „ 

o 3. a o 



0*0 

03 * 

30 
CD • 



a % 

CD 



O 3 



g CO 



O 0' 
3 => 

w z 

3 ^ 
3 3 
aq a 

03 S 
3 f 1 - 
CL > 

C^ 

i-{ n 

cr ^ 

6 

a 

CD 
< 
CD 

o 

3 

CD 
3 



cd 
o 
3^X 
ro ^ 

CD 

'o 

H 

a 

03 
CO 

to 

cm 

C3 

to 





nn 




>< 




< -o 






3 

03 


n 

70 


1 — ' 


•a 













m 




ft 




tJ 






O 
03 



3 *= 
ro o 

3 CR 



2; 



3 
3 

3 
3 



a & 

ro 3 

<5 </, 

CD » 
►— ■ 
O 

'a 
3 

CD 

3 



O 
> 

f 

I 

o 

*> 

CO 

o 
I 



o- 

ft 

tn v 

°p 



co> 

CD 5 

ro I" 

=#= yi 
fX> w 

cr 

CD 



3 
o 

*3 

03 
►— • 

0) 

3 

r+ 

sr 
o 



ZT3 
O ft 



o 

3 

03 
1— » 

M- 
1-t- 

o 



CD 
CO 

o 
o 



3 

a 
o 

03 
r+ 
O 

H 

CO 
<-♦■ 
3 

a 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table Page 

1 SOCIAL-PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN 
STATISTICAL AREAS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA , 1970 28 

2 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN WELFARE AND OTHER SOCIAL VARIABLES 47 

3 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL DEVIATION, FAMILY DISORGANIZATION, 
AND OTHER SOCIAL VARIABLES 61 

4 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND OTHER SOCIAL 
VARIABLES 82 

5 Z-SCORES , CITY OF GAINESVILLE ENUMERATION DISTRICTS 87 

6 RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS 92 

7 FACTORIAL ECOLOGY 105 

8 FACTOR SCORES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS 112 

A-l PERSONAL HOPES AND FEARS IN PERCENTAGES 120 



VI 



LIST OF MAPS 

Map Number Page 

1 RELATIVE HOUSING VALUE BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 31 

2 PERCENTAGE OF ALL UNITS WITH 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS 

PER ROOM BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 32 

3 PERCENTAGE OF BLACK OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY 

ENUMERATION DISTRICT 33 

4 PERCENTAGE OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS BY ENU- 
MERATION DISTRICT 34 

5 ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT EARN LESS 

THAN $6 ,000 PER YEAR BY TRAFFIC ZONE 41 

6 AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN BY ENUMERATION 
DISTRICT 42 

7 AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 43 

8 AID TO THE DISABLED BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 44 

9 RESIDENT ADDRESS OF PERSONS COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST 
PROPERTY BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 45 

10 RESIDENT ADDRESS OF PERSONS COMMITTING CRIMES OF VIOLENCE 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 54 



vn 



11 RESIDENT ADDRESS OF PERSONS COMMITTING MINOR CRIMES BY 
ENUMERATION DISTRICT 55 

12 THE PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN AND ORIGINATION OF CALLS 

FOR POLICE SERVICE BY POLICE ZONES 56 

13 PERCENTAGE OF NON-HUSBAND-WIFE TYPE FAMILIES WITH 
CHILDREN LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD BY ENUMERATION DIS- 
TRICT 57 

14 COUNT OF REPORTED TUBERCULOSIS CASES BY ENUMERATION 
DISTRICT 66 

15 RATES OF DEATH BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 67 

16 RATES OF VENEREAL DISEASE BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 68 

17 AVERAGE READING COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES - 4TH GRADE 

PUPILS BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 75 

18 AVERAGE READING COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES - 6TH GRADE 

PUPILS BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 76 

19 AVERAGE READING COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES - 8TH GRADE 

PUPILS BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 77 

20 AVERAGE READING COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES - 4TH, 6TH, 

AND 8TH GRADE PUPILS BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 78 

21 AVERAGE FLORIDA SENIOR PLACEMENT TEST SCORES - 12TH 

GRADE PUPILS BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 79 



vm 



22 AREAS OF SOCIAL WELL-BEING BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 113 

Appendix Map 

A-l RATING OF HOUSING CONDITIONS BY BLOCKS 



IX 



Chapter 1 
INTRODUCTION TO QUALITY OF LIFE STUDY 



Society and Community 

A society is said to exist when several individuals interrelate with each other over a length 
of time. 

If it is to survive, every society has certain basic functions that must be accomplished. In 
addition to the procreation and socialization of new individuals, each society must provide basic 
goods and services to its members in order that they might physically survive, maintain order a- 
mong other members, and provide for relationships with other new members, groups, and societies. 

These basic functions are facilitated through the organization of the five major institutions of 
our society which include the family, government, education, the economy, and religion. Institu- 
tions may be defined as those cultural patterns that help condition human behavior. They are the 
primary vehicles for conserving and transmitting our cultural heritage. Through these, individuals 
might be more appropriately provided with the basic physical /social needs such as adequate food, 
clothing, and shelter. 

Without a doubt, the major agency of our society has been and will continue to be the family 
(which the 1970 Census defines as a household head and one or more persons who are related by 
blood, marriage, or adoption living together in the same household). 

Earlier in history before our society became so urbanized, the family was totally responsible 
for the physical protection of its members. This not only included supporting the unemployed, car- 
ing for the aged, widowed, retarded or orphaned, but also providing for all the formal education 
of its members. The church did provide some support in the educational arena, however. As the 
population increased and the society became more technologically complex, a gradual transference 
took place whereby the institution of government little by little assumed more leadership in the 



aforementioned areas. Similarly, transferences of this sort also occurred in the other institutions. 
For example, the economic institution evolved to provide for the physical subsistence of society 
in which production, processing, distribution, and consumption of goods and services became 
more "institutionalized" and necessary for group survival. Meanwhile, the educational institution 
developed into a complicated, well-ordered system of public and private learning facilities. As 
previously stated, this system was formerly divided up between the family and church institutions. 
The institution of religion provided then, as now, a kind of cultural pattern in which individuals 
were provided a meaning towards life and a means of coping with everyday problems. However, 
the basic trend appears to be a loss of some of the traditional functions by both the church and 
the family, and a gradual relegation of these functions to the school, the economy, and govern- 
mental institutions. 

It is the basic purpose of these institutions to meet the biological, psychological, and social 
needs of the people which they serve. These institutions, it should be noted, not only occupy 
physical space, but often do so in fairly close proximity to each other. Social interaction occurs 
when members of these institutions interrelate with each other, develop rational interests, and 
develop a sense of identification with the entity (i.e., that physical area that these persons common- 
ly occupy). This entity is usually referred to as a community. 

A community then should be distinguished from a society. While a community usually in- 
volves a sufficient number of local persons interacting with each other for specific locally-shared 
concerns in a generally continuous fashion and is governed by a common set of institutions , a 
society is generally a much larger entity and is sometimes composed of thousands of communities. 

There are three main types of communities: rural, urban and metropolitan. 

A rural community is a "small constellation of institutions and families focused on a common 
center and sharing common interests and functions." 1 * While some community members may live 
close to the cluster of institutions, many others generally live further out in the country and con- 
sequently make less contact with these focal institutions. 

The metropolitan community, on the other hand, is a twentieth century ^phenomenon and u- 
sually involves a "constellation of communities grouped about a central city." The metropolitan 



♦Footnotes appear at the end of each chapter. 



community "reflects modern industrial methods, means of communication, and forms of transpor- 
tation." 3 

The community with which this study is involved is the urban one (i.e., the City of Gaines- 
ville, Florida). Historically, the urban community has been the center of social change as well as 
the center of social problems. Many persons of different racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious ties 
migrate to the urban communities bringing with them new ideas, values, and cultures. 

This diversity of backgrounds of many persons encourages men to develop new techniques 
for dealing with each other and their physical environment. Intricate transportation, communica- 
tion, and industrialization systems are thereby devised, and new innovations occur. Sometimes 
these new innovations come about so rapidly that primary group controls at least begin to break 
down, and the social institutions that bind these many persons together become disorganized, re- 
sulting in juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, crime, family disorganization, sexual delinquency, 
and so forth . 

For the most part, those persons and families incurring such social decay problems live in 
easily definable, physically decaying residential areas characterized by substandard housing units, 
inadequate street and lot layouts, and incompatible mixtures of land uses. Such areas are, in a 
large way, a menace to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and the larger urban 
community of which they are a part. 

As a means for lessening such social-physical decay problem areas, these communities con- 
sidered urban renewal programs as at least partial solutions for ending the physical decay and 
encouraging social reorganization and upgrading. The following section describes what an urban 
renewal program has generally involved. 

Urban Renewal Programs 

Regarding modern day communities and their subsequent problems, urban renewal has prob- 
ably generated some of the most controversial remarks. Basically, urban renewal has involved 
upgrading both residential and non-residential urban areas by way of three main activities: re- 
development, rehabilitation, and conservation. Its primary purpose is to improve the quality of 



life of the total community by attacking the social, economic, and physical decay problems of 
the city. In the past urban renewal programs have been more specifically oriented to slum 
clearance, replacing and restoring deficient, obsolete and unsanitary structures, providing 
more adequate sanitation, transportation and other service facilities, and eliminating both traf- 
fic congestion and the haphazard mixing of land uses. 

Redevelopment often entails complete clearance of deteriorated structures in large areas 
and rebuilding of new ones. Structures that are deteriorating are often razed because they 
are so dilapidated that no effective public and/or private expenditures can economically be 
made. 

Rehabilitation measures, on the other hand, are generally not aimed at total demolition: 
they are usually directed at those neighborhoods which contain blighting influences but still 
possess the potentiality of providing a sound living environment. Rehabilitation procedures 
include, but are not necessarily limited to, developing vacant land, removing obsolete build- 
ings, replacing and upgrading building facades, providing new neighborhood amenities (such 
as open spaces, parks, etc.) and installing new individual building amenities such as new 
electrical wiring. All or part of these could be accomplsihed in hopes of restoring an area to 
its original function or, on the other hand, to bring about a more appropriate use to an area. 

A conservation program is one directed at the prevention of blight in currently sound 
living areas. It is a protective process designed to maintain the quality and function of an 
area and/or neighborhood. This process allows for the adequate maintenance of an area while 
preventing inappropriate developments of land and building structures. In short, the conser- 
vation program aims at preventing deterioration and blight so that an area will not need rede- 
velopment and/or rehabilitation. 

Historically, then, urban renewal has been concerned with a wide range of urban activities. 
In addition to the clearing and upgrading of slum and blighted areas and the improvement of older 
buildings, urban renewal was also applied to urban highways and open space planning and develop- 
ment as well as Central Business District development. In short, urban renewal has been utilized 
as the primary tool to remove blight. 4 



As defined by the City of Gainesville Code of Ordinances, %. blighted area is one which 
contains a substantial number of dilapidated and deteriorating structures. In addition to in- 
adequate street layouts, faulty lot layouts (especially in relation to structure size, adequacy, 
and accessibility) , blighted areas tend to show diversity of ownership , and delinquencies in 
tax and special assessment payments. In brief, the blighted area is one which is unsanitary, 
unsafe, and constitutes economic or social liability to the community and is a menace to the 
public health, safety, morals, and welfare in its present condition. 

That same section in the charter also defines a slum area as one in which there is a 
predominance of buildings that are dilapidated, deteriorated, old, and obsolete. These build- 
ings generally contain inadequate provisions for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, and open 
space. Additionally, high population densities, overcrowding conditions, and conditions which 
endanger life and/or property are paramount in these areas. The slunnParea, in conclusion, is 
a combination of factors that are conducive to ill -health, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, 
crime, and transmission of disease. 

As the two above definitions allude, blight may be broken up into three main forms: phy- 
sical, socio-economic, and complex. 

Physical blight may include structural deterioration, poor or missing sanitation facilities, 
dilapidated and deteriorated structures, presence of trash and rubbish, pollution (air, noise, 
etc.), poor or lacking community facilities (playgrounds, schools, open space, water/sewer/elec- 
trical systems), and inadequate street and drainage facilities. 

Socio-economic blight might include areas with high rates of crime, prostitution, juvenile 
delinquency, venereal disease, ill-health, and welfare recipiency. In addition, it may be con- 
cerned with the concentration of tax delinquent and tax title properties, declining property values, 
and the presence of high building vacancy rates. 

Complex blight, on the other hand, envelops areas with large amounts of socio-economic 
blight and incompatible land uses; obsolete layouts of lots, blocks, streets, and neighborhoods; 
and unsafe conditions of marginal lands (i.e., areas that are conducive to flooding, marshiness, 
or tidal flows) . 



As the two Code of Ordinances definitions imply , the basic difference between a slum 
and a blighted area is the size. The slum area is more concentrated and definite, contains 
more complex blight forms , and probably requires wholesale redevelopment; a blighted area 
is less extensive and in less disrepair. Blight, too, may be considered as a process and a 
disease which causes a slum. 

This study will attempt to describe by way of the utilization of social indicators the ex- 
tent of the complex blight forms that exist in the City of Gainesville. 

Analysis of Environmental and Social Indicators 

For a long time some city planning operaticns have proferred the idea that the physical 
environment chiefly determined the social behavior of the residents. It was felt then that if 
the physical environment were improved, social pathologies would diminish. Well-planned and 
designed neighborhoods, parks, and community facilities would aid in the elimination of over- 
crowded and deteriorated units and blighted areas, which in turn would help alleviate crime, 
prostitution, drug addiction, mental illness, broken homes, etc. 

Early studies, however, pointed out that these initial presumptions were only partially 
correct, and that the social-physical decay that existed in slum and blighted areas was result- 
ant from an elaborate interrelationship of social, political, economic and psychological factors. 
Because planners realized they must begin weighing the social repercussions more heavily, 
physical approaches to comprehensive planning consequently coverged with the social approaches 
to city planning and culminated in "comprehensive" city planning efforts. 

The purpose of this study is to provide decision-makers with an objective analysis of the 
social and physical character of residential development of the community so as to point out pos- 
sible urban renewal areas . 

By drawing up a comprehensive set of social and environmental indicators, the relative 
status of districts within the City of Gainesville can be shown , a more systematic and objective 
analysis of the City's problems can be provided, and a tool that would allow for an intensive 
analysis of already implemented comprehensive urban programs would be available. 



In effect, use of social and environmental indicators in the following quality of life study- 
could be informational enough to: 

1. point to general social programs which could improve the overall quality of life in the 
total community; 

2. define the social-physical decay problems as thoroughly as possible; 

3. delineate general areas in need of an improved quality of life; and 

4. provide some insight as to possible comprehensive methods that might improve the al- 
ready generally defined areas . 

What is "Quality of Life"? 

Although it is virtually impossible to define because of the generality in terminology and its 
applicability to almost any individual or class trait or characteristic, the phrase does come exceed- 
ingly close to meaning the state or condition of an individual or group of individuals. It has been 
described as that which refers "...to the extent to which environments, social and physical, are 
conducive to a state of happiness , keeping always in mind that for many people externals play a 
comparatively small role in the quality, extent, or duration of their episodes of happiness..." ™ 

It would be generally agreed that a society would enjoy a high quality of life when each and 
every citizen living in it enjoys the following: adequate food, shelter, and clothing; a good job 
and adequate income; good mental and physical health and health services; a decent education; good 
housing with adequate recreational and cultural facilities; an ability to be socially and economically 
mobile; and self-confidence and freedom from discrimination. (see Appendix Table A-l) . 

In reality, however, this is not the case. We know that there are often deep-seated problems 
in any or all of the aforementioned areas, and quality of life needs serious upgrading in some or 
many parts of our communities. These areas are often defined as slum or blighted areas. This study 
will look at least indirectly at the following qualities of life: poverty, physical health, housing quality, 



familial disorganization, and individual deviation. 

The following criteria were designated to be indicators of quality of life or sccial well- 
being in this study: 

1. Socio-Economic Status 

2. Educational Achievement 

3 . Health 

4. Quality of Housing 

5. Family Disorganization /Individual Deviation 

Urban Indicators 

To date, there appears to be no good, accurate, reliable, and generally acceptable yard- 
stick available with which to determine whether a community is getting better or worse. However, 
with the advent and growing interest in quality of life studies , the gap between the actual environ- 
ment — social, economic, and physical — and measuring that actual environment effectively, seems 
to be diminishing. 

As previously stated, the primary purpose of this study is to expand upon the relationships 
between social and physical decay problem areas. In another study, quality of housing was objec- 
tively analyzed in relation to a refined scaling system. This section will attempt to deliver some 
insight into the social aspects that parallel physical decay problem areas through the utilization of 
some social and environmental indicators . 

Definition of an Urban Indicator 8 

Based on in-depth research on the subject of indicators, it was determined that probably the 



most accurate, concise, and prevalent definitions of the same can be portrayed in the following 
two: 

1. "...a statistic of direct interest which facilitates concise, comprehensive, and balanced 
judgments about the condition of the major aspects of society in relation to its goals..." 

2. "...a measure of the aggregate well-being among the persons and families within a 
society, a city, or a neighborhood..." 10 

In all cases it was found to be a statistic of commonly held importance that was capable of 
providing at least some evidence as to the extent of the social well-being of particular geographic 
areas . 

In addition to providing some quantitative insight, an indicator should also be able to elicit 
some qualitative insight (i.e., when accurately stated, an indicator should enable the audience to 
make a judgment as to "goodness" or "badness" of the phenomena being measured) . 

In conclusion , then , it should be a general indicator of well-being of many different public 
policies, plans, or programs that is responsible for at least intimating at crucial urban problems. 
It should be a key factor that aids in supplying the necessary information for determining whether 
and to what extent a community has progressed or declined. It should also make due provisions 
for a more systematic and objective evaluation of social, environmental, and economic conditions, 
programs, and plans already implemented. 

Problems in Utilizing Social Indicators 

Many experts in the fields of the social sciences (especially in the social indicator movement) 
and social reporting programs feel that the current state of the social indicator movement is one of 
underdevelopment (i.e., several difficulties must be overcome before acceptance can become more 
widespread) . There appears to be disharmony on many and varied points. 

First of all, there exists the basic problem of how a social indicator study should be viewed. 



In this report, it seems important to state that the social indicators used should be viewed 
merely as primary tools capable of spatially describing how certain urban areas quantitatively 
"measure up" with each other on specific social and environmental questions. 

Social indicators, historically, have lacked agreement and general understanding on the 
definitions and methods of measuring certain social phenomena. In addition, there appears to 
be more than mild confusion as to the social indicator's validity, reliability, and adequacy in 
representing the concept of social well-being. In addition to the problem of assigning "weights" 
to these indicators, there is also the problem of the widespread disagreement as to what are the 
"typical" or generally accepted norms for social well-being. 

Finally, there is a distinct problem in the possibility of extensive error by the various 
agencies in reporting and classifying information relative to social indicators such that any use 
of this information could provide distorted and/or biased results. 

In reference to this specific study, several other major obstacles were incurred as well. 
Before the study was begun, several agencies were contacted in order to more clearly define 
the types, sources, availability, and accessibility to certain information. In addition to the 
Housing Division of the Department of Community Development, the Staff also contacted the Alachua 
County School Board, County Health Department, the County Welfare Department, City of Gainesville 
Police Department, and the State of Florida Employment Services. 

By and large, most of the agencies were found to be receptive and responsive to the concept 
and in offering assistance. On one occasion, however, it was discovered that information could not 
be retrieved unless a court affidavit allowing accessibility preceded each particular individual ad- 
dress pertinent to this study. More than once, there appeared to be more than a sincere reluctance 
on the part of some agency officials to divulge some information, apparently because of its high de- 
gree of sensitivity and confidentiality. With the City Manager's assurance in written form, however, 
access was allowed to some information. 

Probably the greatest problem inhibiting acquisition of information was the lack of a centralized, 
automated information system whereby one could go into an agency and quickly extract the desired 
data. Instead, in each case individual data had to be compiled by hand. This process seriously im- 
peded the amount and types of information which could be gleaned, especially when time and money 



10 



constraints were taken into consideration. 

The results , then , and lack of explanatory variables in this study should be viewed with 
respect to these aforementioned limitations. 

In conjunction with these constraints, it was also realized that certain major assumptions 
must be made not only relative to the basic study mechanics but more especially in defining 
social well-being and quality of life. These include the following: 

1. some people enjoy a better "quality of life" than others; while some people find it 
relatively easy to enjoy a good quality of life, others find it extremely difficult; 

2. quality of life is improved when a larger number of people (numerically and propor- 
tionately) than before are able to feed, clothe, house, and educate themselves; a- 
chieve a more meaningful employment status; feel they will achieve more equal pro- 
tection under the law; and recognize themselves as individuals with individual talents; 

3. "...while 'quality of life' is a term in the public domain, anyone has a right to define 

it in his own way - it is fundamentally a normative construct, like welfare and happiness, 
and so presents problems of clarity of definition and of consensus if it is to play any role 
in the formation and evaluation of policy..." ** 

4. levels in quality of life which vary through time will be affected both by individual char- 
acteristics and the residential environment. 

History of the Slum Dweller from a Socio-Economic Point-of-View 

Historically, those people who have resided in a slum^r blighted area are the same ones 
who have predominantly performed the unskilled labor and service functions of our society. 

Many of these same people, hindered by the fact that there exists an ever -decreasing need 
for unskilled labor, remain unemployed or at best underemployed and are often pressured into 
moving from one impermanent, underpaying job to another. 



11 



Because they are unskilled, they often are unable to qualify for reliable, and gainful 
employment. Without an adequate income, they are unable to secure the necessities of life 
(such as shelter, clothing, food, and social status). The lack of stable and meaningful em- 
ployment often results in increased social and emotional unsteadiness **and seriously hinders 
people from becoming better educated, better housed, and from obtaining better access to a 
gamut of choices of privileges that the middle class experiences routinely, as well as a better 
"quality of life." 

Feelings of worthlessness and marginal family membership , therefore , grow out from long 
periods of unemployment or underemployment.^ Familial abandonment, feelings of hopelessness, 
and self-destructive behavior follow. ^ 

For that reason , the woman often becomes the dominant member of the family , frequently 
living with different men in search of a suitable mate and a father for her children. As the 
family becomes primarily female-based, so does the subculture; relationships are often accen- 
tuated by free union, illegitimate children, and broken homes .15 

Children, especially males, need to grow up under the guidance 1 ^ of some male authoritative 
figure. Familial desertions by the male parent help create (if not amplify) feelings of despair and 
worthlessness. From a very early age, these children must learn to adjust to ill-treatment, strug- 
gling , and vice. 

Just as their parents before them , these children lack the proper inspirational guidance and 
consequently lack the interest and the skill to participate in contemporary society. ^ They suffer, 
too, from the inability to recognize an opportunity and to take advantage of it if and when it should 
become available. *& Feelings of indifference, despondency, and rejection result, and even more social 
and emotional unsteadiness sets in. Defending against enemies, living in households with mental ill- 
ness, learning to co-exist with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent, and lacking in the necessary 
environment conducive to learning to read, write, study, and relate to teachers becomes a way of 
life. 

Those who are fortunate enough to be taken under the wing of some sensitive teacher or 



12 



counselor and are taught to read, write, and study properly are often classified by their fellow 
classmates and peers as deviant or queer. Often, these children must regress to the level of 
their classmates in order to be socially acceptable. Those who are unwilling to regress must be 
prepared to defend themselves. In effect, children learn behavioral patterns totally useful in their 
culture, but highly unacceptable in society as a whole. 

As they reach adulthood and become physically mature, emotional growth, social growth, 
and educational attainment become retarded. 

Further hindered by the ever-decreasing need for unskilled labor , they too must seek employ- 
ment. The individual, like members of the generation before him, must also learn to cope with oc- 
cupational instability in addition to larger society's rejecting him for his upbringing, lack of education, 
and ability to perform only menial tasks. In short, he must learn to cope with his particular quality 
of life. He must also learn to gain self-respect and dignity. He becomes apathetic, cynical, and even 
hostile towards those who try to help him. 8 Tha generation that follows will suffer from a worse or 
at best similar quality of life. 

Children consequently grow up , experience the world as a place where it makes no sense to 
plan for the future, to depend on others, and to conform to society's standards. 



13 



FOOTNOTES 



George A. Hillery , Jr., "The Folk Village: A Comparative Analysis," Rural Soci- 
ology , (December, 1961), 26:335-353, as listed in Merrill, Society and Culture (Englewood 
Cliffs, 1965), p. 432. 

2 F. E. Merrill, Society and Culture (Englewood Cliffs, 1965), p. 440. 

^bid. 

^W. R. Thompson, A Preface to Urban Economics (Baltimore, 1968), p. 222. Although 
it cannot alone solve all problems attendent to slum areas: "The current program of urban re- 
newal, without a strong program in employmsnt counseling, vocational retraining, and general 
adult education is not only unlikely to raise the socio-economic level of the slum dwellers in 
significant amount, but is almost equally unlikely to even keep pace with the prospective rate 
of blight formation. . ." 

5 City of Gainesville, Charter Laws, Section 84(f) and (g) (1960), p. 70.18. 

°Thompson, p. 221. With regard to the urban housing problem, Wilbur R. Thompson 
has pointed out that, "Very few students of the subject now believe that slums create crime 
and vice and disease; it is now considered more likely that the slums simply attract problem 
families , and their problems will not be erased by putting families in a public housing pro- 
ject." 

7 Lowdon Wingo, The Quality of Life : Toward a Microeconomic Definition , Urban Studies 
10:1 (University of Glasgow, 1973), 4. 

o 

For a good comprehensive historical narrative of the evolution of the social indicator 
movement, the reader is referred to a study by Robert J. Gray titled, "Social Well-Being in 
Tampa, Florida: A Case Study in the Use of Social Indicators at the Intra-City Level," pp. 
20-27, and a publication by the Environmental Protection Agency titled, Quality of Life Indi- 
cators - A Review of the State -of- the -Art and Guidelines Derived to Assist in Developing En- 
vironmental Indicators (December, 1972), pp. 32-35. 



14 



9 Quality of Life Indicators - A Review of State -of-the- Art and Guidelines Derived to 
Assist in Developing Environmental Indicators, Environmental Studies Division Office of Re- 
search "and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency (December, 1972), p. 5. 

10 Darwin G. Stuart, Urban Indicators: Their Role in Planning , Planning Advisory 
Service Report #281 (June, 1972) , pp. 3-8. 

11 Wingo, p. 16. 

12 M. Fried and J. Levin, "Some Social Functions of Urban Slums", p. 72, as listed in 
B. J. Frieden and R. Morris, eds., Urban Planning and Social Policy (New York, 1968). 
"Clearly, any attempt to regard the slum as only a residential habitat for the working class, 
as merely a locus of poor housing and low rent, or as mainly a harbor for many forms of 
social pathology, neglects its prime significrnce in rendering a meaningful life in a society 
which is oriented to different values and different patterns of social relationship . " 

13j. k. Myers and B. H. Roberts, Family and Class Dynamics in Mental Illness (New 
York, 1959). Members of lowest class groups show highest rates of schizophrenia. E. L. 
Faris and H. W. Dunham, Mental Disorders in Urban Areas (University of Chicago Press, 1939). 
Highest rates for certain forms of mental illness are found in or near CBD. 

*-^N. M. Bradburn and D. Caplovitz, Reports on Happiness (Chicago, 1965). Income 
and employment status correlates with happiness. 

■^W. J. Goode, "Economic Factors and Marital Stability," American Sociological Review , 16: 
802-812 (1951), p. 803. There are higher divorce ratios among persons of lower socio-economic 
status . 

6 D. G. Sills, ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences , 4, 301. There is 
evidence that a weak or absent father distorts a boy's sex identity so that he tends to be effem- 
inate or compensatorily overmasculine. 



15 



17j. A. Kahl, "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys," Har- 
vard Educational Review 23 (1953), 3, 186-203. Middle class parents, in comparison with 
lower class parents, place more stress on values which result in high levels of aspirations 
and achievement in the educational/occupational spheres. 

1 °H. J. Gans, Social and Physical Planning for the Elimination of Urban Poverty , as listed 
in Frieden, pp. 39-54. 



16 



Chapter 2 
BASIC STUDY METHODOLOGY 



In order to understand and appreciate the methodology utilized in this study , the reader 
should be made aware of some of the basic techniques and assumptions that were utilized in the 
statistical analyses that were performed. 

Data Base 

In order to better define those social-physical relationships which exist between the physical 
and social environment, data that is collected must be comparable in relation to both time and space. 

Since this study is a static one, the time factor will be constant in order to allow for signifi- 
cant relationships to be depicted. In view of the fact that information from the 1970 Census of Pop- 
ulation and Housing was utilized as a basic data source, it was necessary to continue collecting data 
relative to the social indicators for that same year. 

With respect to holding the spatial variable constant, it was decided that characteristics at the 
enumeration district level would be analyzed in favor of available population and household informa- 
tion at the census tract level. 

It should be noted that data aggregated at the enumeration district level is based on a survey 
of the total 1970 population of the area in question, while data aggregated at the census tract level 
is based on a sample survey. Census tract information does include, however, much broader infor- 
mation. 

Since the study is primarily one which relates to housing and residential quality, the entire 
housing market for the area should be theoretically examined. Because the agency responsible for 
this report does not have jurisdiction over the entire housing market of the Gainesville Area, the 



17 



total housing market and the characteristics which relate to it were not included in the analysis. 

However, the area covered (the City of Gainesville) should be diverse enough to insure that rea- 
sonably valid results occur. 

In conclusion, two basic assumptions were made with respect to aggregating data to a set of 
enumeration districts: 

1. Social problems are to some extent related to their physical proximity to some phenomenon 
or set of phenomena; and 

2. Households tend to spatially differentiate themselves according to their social, physical 
and economic characteristics. 

Based on these assumptions , each household should be more like another household in that same dis- 
trict than a household existing in another or adjoining district. Additionally, households existing in 
the same districts would similarly experience a set of general social problems. It would seem that 
these two above-mentioned assumptions would hold more especially true for smaller geographic units. 
For this reason , too , the enumeration districts in the City of Gainesville were chosen as the basic 
spatial unit of analysis over the census tract. 

Correlations 

A correlation coefficient is a number whose value ranges from plus 1.0 to minus 1.0 and de- 
fines the degree or strength of relationship between two variables. Two variables are said to have 
a high positive correlation when a high value in one variable is always associated with a high value 
in the other (for example, as population density increases, so do tuberculosis rates), and a low 
value in one is always associated with a low value in the other (i.e., as population density decreases, 
so do tuberculosis rates) . Two variables have a high negative correlation and an inverse relationship 
when a high value for one is associated with a low value for the other (for example, as estimated fam- 
ily income increases, crime rates decrease). When the value for one variable cannot be associated 
with values of the other in this way, there is no correlation between the two, in which case the cor- 
relation coefficient will register a zero. This study utilized the Pearson Correlation Coefficient which 
measures the amount of spread about the linear least-squares equation relating the two variables. More 
precisely , the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) is the ratio of the covariation in the square root to 

18 



the square root of the product of variation in the two variables. If the two variables are "x" and 
"y"., this may be written: 

2 (xj -x) (yj-y ) 19 

i-1 



r = 



N 2 N 

[^(xj-xr][^(yj-y)] 

L i-1 i-l 



Regression Equa t ions 



The correlation coefficient assumes no cause and effect relationships between variables. The 
regression equation does. It is a statistically derived equation defining a causal relationship between 
one dependent variable (or social indicator) and a set of independent variables. This, of course, re- 
quires some knowledge of the character of the data to be analyzed. Chapter 9 will explain this proce- 
dure in further detail. 

Factor Analysis 

Factor analysis is a means of analyzing the variables and presenting the information contained 
in these variables in a smaller, more inclusive and significant set of factors. The way these signif- 
icant factors (social indicators) work can be conceived by thinking of a pair of highly correlated 
variables . 

Recalling previous discussion on correlation, if two variables are highly correlated, there is 
assumed to be a strong relationship between the two. If the value assumed by one variable is known, 
and the correlation between it and the other variable is known, a good estimation as to the value of 
the other variable can be made. Generally, most of the information presented by the two variables 
is therefore available through the inspection of one of the variables. For example, the variable of 
(1) percentage of household units per district that are overcrowded and (2) percentage of housing 
per district valued at less than $5,000 can be factor analyzed to depict the social indicator of poor 
housing quality. As already mentioned, an effort was made to use generally acceptable statistics 
related to health, education, crime, welfare, and blight to detect the presence of social pathologies. 



19 



Two factor analyses were performed on all the variables in order to present an even more 
inclusive variable or social indicator. Each social indicator was viewed independently as to the 
effects or dependent variables in a set of regression equations with the elements of the social 
system (Census information) forming the set of independent variables. Using z-scores, these social 
indicators may be used to determine the standard score and consequently the rank of each enumera- 
tion district. 

Z-Scores 

Most people are familiar with the calculations of the average, or mean value a social indicator 
might assume. In calculating the average, values for all the cases are added, and the total is divid- 
ed by the number of cases measured. 

From the divergence of the values measured, another measure can be obtained. This is the 
standard deviation which tells an expected value difference of the variable measured and its average 
value. 

The z-score is the ratio of the divergence of this value from the average for any particular 
case to the standard deviation for that variable. For this study, the higher the percentage, average, 
or rate, the higher the z-score. 

The Study Model 

As was stated previously, social pathology is assumed when it is generally understood that 
there exists a serious unsatisfactory state in the social system. This study will look at social path- 
ologies (social indicators) as effects caused by unsatisfactory states in the social system. These 
states are unsatisfactory precisely because they are related to social pathologies. Other than this, 
there is no more than subjective information as to the character of these states. Given a mechanism 
to sense the state of the social system, however, and a mechanism for detecting the presence of 
social pathologies , it is possible to define the unsatisfactory states as those being highly correlated 
with an instance of social pathology. Further, it is possible, using regression analysis, to define 
cause-effect relationships between various significant elements of the social system and the signif- 
icant social indicators. 



20 



Conclusions 

The relationships derived should provide some indication as to the general characteristics 
that should be considered for treatment to remedy certain social pathologies. In addition this 
information should supply some general useful policy information relative to government control 
in certain sectors of the social system. 



21 



FOOTNOTES 



l^In this study a strong relationship was assumed to exist when the "r" equalled .775 
or better (or "r2 " equalled .600); some relationship was assumed to exist when the "r" e- 
qualled at least .671 (or "r 2» equalled at least .450). Correspondingly, a weak relationship 
was considered to exist when the "r" equalled at least .548 (or the "r 2» equalled at least .300) 



22 



Chapter 3 
AN INTRODUCTION TO GAINESVILLE 



In the early 1800's the Gainesville Area was inhabited by the Seminole Indians who grazed 
their cattle on the prairies near the present city. 

The area which is now known as Gainesville first began to grow as a non-Indian settlement 
in 1830. The City was founded in 1854 with a population of 275 and has grown to a population of 
about 70,600 in 1973. 

Perhaps the two most significant dates in the economic history of the Gainesville Area are 
1859 and 1905. The railroad linking Gainesville with the east coast was completed in 1859, and 
the City was chosen as the location for the University of Florida in 1905. 

After the completion of the railroad, Gainesville became a significant market and service 
center for a large agricultural region. This agricultural recource remained the primary economic 
base for the Area until after World War II. It was not the only source, however, and at one time 
or another tung oil production, tourism , phosphate mining, and the processing of forest products 
played significant roles in the economy. Even agriculture varied in its prinicpal crop over the 
years with first cotton, then oranges, truck crops, livestock, and even peanuts dominating. 

Throughout this period, the University of Florida or its predecessor existed, slowly growing 
in size and importance until it came to dominate the economy of Gainesville and provide base employ- 
ment for a wider region. It remains today as the single largest force in the economy, with other 
significant employers slowly coming into the picture in recent years, such as Sperry Rand, General 
Electric, the J. Hillis Miller Health Center, the V.A. Hospital, government, various retail and ser- 
vice establishments , and the construction industry . 



23 



No single factor influenced the growth and insured the success of Gainesville during its early 
years more than the railroad. By 1860, the railroad leading from Fernandina to Cedar Key was com- 
pleted, thus linking Gainesville with shipping facilities on both coasts. During the railroad boom of 
the late 1800' s, this railroad was joined by other tracks running north and south, thus expanding the 
shipping capabilities of the area. 

The area now known as Payne's Prairie was known as Alachua Lake in the late 1800's. The land 
south of the lake was used extensively for growing crops . So productive were these crops that a line 
of freight steamers plied Alachua Lake, connecting the agricultural area to the south with the rail ter- 
minal at Gainesville. 

Alachua Lake drained to form the prairie , and the decline of agriculture reduced the need of the 
railroad. Today the automobile has become the primary form of transportation, with air travel and buses 
providing the predominant public transportation into and out of the area. 

The East Florida Seminary was founded in Gainesville in 1857 and was moved to Ocala in 1866 . The 
seed for much of the current character of the Gainesville Area was planted in 1905 when the Seminary was 
relocated in Gainesville and renamed the University of Florida. The University has grown from about 250 
students to over 23,000 in 1972. Gainesville is now called "The University City." 

In 1965 a comprehensive public community college was established in Gainesville by the Florida 
Legislature. This institution, Santa Fe Community College, is expected to add a great deal to the di- 
versity of the higher education complex in Gainesville. 

As the Gainesville Area changed, grew, and prospered, the once agricultural and rural environ- 
ment has been invaded with urban development. Accelerated population growth, expanding non-agri- 
cultural labor force, growth in higher education, and an expansion of medical facilities have fostered 
an accelerated concentration of urban development. Growth in recent years has meant the drawing of 
more and more remote rural areas and their towns into the orbit of an expanding urban Gainesville Area. 

Growth has also meant higher per capita incomes, more demand for local goods and services, and 
increasing pressure for quality goods and services. 



24 



Table 1 purports to provide a comparative view of the Gainesville SMSA with the other Florida 
SMSA's with respect to significant social and physical characteristics. 

As the Table indicates , the Gainesville SMSA showed the third highest percentage gain in popu- 
lation with 41.4 percent (from 74,074 to 104,764) from 1960 to 1970. The Gainesville SMSA also had the 
third highest percentage of Black population (21.1%); the fifth lowest percentage of persons that were 
foreign born (2 . 7%) ; and , the lowest percentage of persons aged 65 or more (6 . 3%) . In addition , the 
Gainesville SMSA revealed the highest percentage of the total population (5 years old and over) living 
in a new residence since 1965 (61.9%) , and the third highest percentage of units which are renter oc- 
cupied (39.2%) . 

Regarding educational achievement and longevity, the Gainesville SMSA population in comparison 
to eight other Florida SMSA populations had the second highest median school years completed figure 
(12.6 years) , and the second highest percentage of persons (25 years old and over) who completed four 
years of high school (59.8%) . 

With regard to incomes , the Gainesville SMSA registered third lowest in median family income 
($8,329) ; fourth lowest in mean family income ($10 ,155) ; second highest in percentage of total families 
earning 3,000 dollars per year or less (13.3%); and third lowest in percentage of total families earning 
10 , 000 dollars per year or more (39 . 3%) . 

When "families as a percentage of the total number of households" were analyzed, the Gainesville 
SMSA disclosed the second lowest percentage (76.7%) of all the SMSA's. This may be attributed to the 
high number of non-family student households. 

The Gainesville SMSA had results that kept fairly close to the mean of all the SMSA's in the following 
categories: 

— those persons age 18 or less as a percentage of the total population (31.4%); 

the percentage of unemployed labor force (3.4%) ; 



25 



— resident employment as a percentage of the total population (37.8%) (which, incidentally, 
ranked third highest in resident employment rate) ; 

— the percentage of housing units with 1.01 persons per room (8.3%); and 

— the percentage of single family units to the total housing units (68.6%) . 

While the Gainesville SMSA had the second highest percentage of workers who were white-collar 
(58.9%) , it also recorded the second highest percentage of total units lacking all or some plumbing fa- 
cilities (8.9%) . 

In conclusion, the Gainesville SMSA can be characterized as young and highly mobile with a 
student- faculty type population. It is already a retailing and educational center while rapidly develop- 
ing into a regional medical center. 

This study, then, examines the following qualities of life: housing quality, socio-economic status, 
family disorganization, individual deviation, health quality, and educational achievement. 

The middle chapters , 5 - 8 , provide the following information: 

1. An explanation concerning the concepts and logic that point up the available indicators of 
social well-being; 

2. Maps of the individual variables which delineate the social indicators by enumeration dis- 
trict in order to give emphasis to those areas in need of improvement; and 

3. An outline of those significant relationships between indicators, especially between housing 
quality and social pathology by means of correlational analysis. 

Chapter 9 will address factor analysis, regression analysis, and z-score analysis. 



26 



As previously stated, factor analysis is a means whereby a large number of variables which 
are intercorrelated can be presented in a more inclusive and significant fashion. By eliminating 
redundant information , factor analysis should provide results that point out basic social problem 
areas that should be examined in order to provide for a better quality of life for the City of Gaines- 
ville in general. With a resultant factor score, enumeration districts may be compared and ranked. 

The regression analysis , on the other hand, makes an attempt to predict a single dependent 
variable (a social indicator) from a number of independent variables. This analysis should aid in 
depicting causal relationships between elements in the social system and the social indicators. 

The z-score analysis, in conclusion, should provide resultant information which enables the 
determination of the ranking of each district with respect to those variables and social indicators 
that designate quality of life. With these results, specific geographic areas may be determined and 
ranked according to their increasing/decreasing quality of life characteristics. 



27 



Table 1 
SOCIAL-PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STANDARD 





METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 1970 








0) 

c 
re 

Xi 

«j CP 

c , 
o 

a. *" 

a. . 


ro 
O 

H o 

»*- r% 
O en 

0.0 ** 

ra 13 

w 'o 

x: 
3 cj 
— « 
E 3 
re 

x x 


"ra 

H 

2 

re .2 
in ra 

■3 3 

re a. 
— 



<" c 

10 

Bl 

3 

a a 

c£ 

BO 

"re 

O O 

u, r- 1 


u- 
en 

ir. 

ra C 



CO — 

*■' ra 

id 3 

CO Q. 
< O 

c 

■a 2 
a 

.a h 


° 

CD 
l/> " 

ra 
O O 

> a 

ra 

si 

in 2-, 
to ^ 

<U 3 
CO 

< H 


\ of Total Persons (25 
6 Over) Who Completed 
4 years of High School 


09 
M 

re 





t3 T3 
t/3 

.2 0. 
■a E 
cj 

>: 




E 

u 

c 

>> 

ra 

CJ 

2 



E 


c 

_>. 

E 
ra 
b, 

c 
ra 

•3 

03 
2 


en 
a 
E 



a « 

09 

x; u 
2 "- 1 

O 
■1 

CJ 
« ° 

■ -. 

«? O 


n 

ej 
E 


S » 

— -" 
s 

tn 

QJ O 

« ° 

E ° 

tS 3 

c* 5 


% of Total Population 
(5 yrs. 6 older) in New 
Residence Since 1965 


c 

D 

O 
JO f- 
re en 

— <u 
3 >. 

> 5 

a 

o* 3 CJ 


Resident Employment 
as 9 o Total Population, 
1970 


tn 
>-. 
O 
J* 
u 
p 

u 

re 

"o 


■ 

5 



Single Family Units as 
\ of Total Housing Units, 
1970 


% Housing Units Lacking 
Some or all Plumbing 
Facilities, 1970 


00 

a 

D 

•a 


EL 
3 




u 

a 

c 

o 

.— r- 

en 

0* n 


j= • 
r- 3 

■J) w, 

= S 

CO S - 

5 S 1 

3! - O 

3 "~ S 
O _ 
X i- 

. CJ 


Fort Lauderdale - 
Hollywood 


♦ 85.7 


7C.9 


12.8 


8.0 


28.1 


17.9 


55.4 


12.2 


$12,109 


$9,539 


8.9 


47.0 


61.1 


3.4 


3G.9 


52.0 


60.8 


1.8 


27.2 


71 


Jacksonville 


+ 1G.1 
+35.6 


81. G 
77.0 


22.9 


1.8 


35.1 


7.5 


51.6 


12.1 


9,931 


8.G71 


12.4 


41.1 


51.6 


3.3 


3G.4 


53.6 


75.1 


4.9 


32.4 


83 


Miami 


15.5 


24.2 


29.2 


13.6 


51.9 


12.1 


11.458 


9.245 


10.7 


45.4 


58.2 


3.7 


40.5 


51.1 


50. 2 


2.8 


45.9 


13. C 


Orlando 


♦ 34.4 


81.9 


14.9 


2.G 


35.3 


9.6 


56.1 


12.2 


10.3G1 


6.884 


10.4 


42.6 


58.0 


4/8 


36.7 


52.7 


77.3 


3.6 


30.3 


7.3 


Tensacola 


♦19.5 


85.2 


18.3 


1.4 


3G.2 


G.4 


51.0 


12.1 


9.074 


7,977 


13.8 


34.9 


53.8 


5.0 


31.0 


47.9 


82.6 


7.4 


29.2 


9.5 


Tullahdssco 


♦38.8 


77.9 


25.7 


1.7 


25.7 


5.5 


64.5 


12.7 


10.615 


8.9G1 


11.4 


43.0 


59.6 


3.0 


42.0 


65. 7 


66.5 


9.3 


40.0 


8.1 


Tampa - 

St. Petersburg 


♦ 31.1 


7G.2 


11.1 


6.1 


11.1 


20.3 


51.4 


12.0 


9,509 


7.883 


12.2 


35.4 


54.1 


3.6 


34.2 


50.8 


72.6 


3.3 


25.5 


5.9 


V.'est Palm Beach 


+ 52.9 


77.3 


17.9 


7.9 


29.7 


17.3 


55.7 


12.2 


12.310 


9.112 


10.8 


44.7 


56.5 


3.0 


37.7 


48.9 


62.7 


4.2 


32.4 


8.6 


Gainesville 


+41.4 


76.7 


21.1 


2.7 


31.4 


6.3 


59.8 


12.6 


10,155 


8.329 


13.3 


39.3 


61.9 


3.4 


37.8 


58.9 


68.6 


8/9 


39.2 


8.3 


MEAN 


+39.5 


78.9 


17.8 


6.3 


29.0 


11.6 


55.2 


12.2 


10.613 


8,733 


15.5 


41.4 


57.2 


3.7 


37.0 


53.5 


69.1 


5.1 


33.5 


8.5 



Source: U. S. Bureau of Census: 1970 Census of Population; 1970 Census of Housing 



28 



Chapter 4 
QUALITY OF HOUSING 



Measuring housing quality continues to be an exceptionally difficult task , especially in defining 
the terminology. For most people housing means much more than physical structures. It not only "has 
become a subject of highly charged emotional content; " 20"but it also has become "the symbol of status, 
of achievement, of social acceptance. It seems to control, in a large measure, the way in which the 
individual, the family, perceives himself/itself and is perceived by others." 21 

As Frieden and Morris point out, ". . .a familiar and satisfying environment with nearby friends 
and relatives, supportive local institutions, and specialized activities adapted to the character of the 
population, often means more to people than the physical standards of their housing. . ." 22 

As attested to by the two aforementioned quotations , housing has come to mean more than just 
physical structures. It has also been equated with the neighborhood , a culture, and a life-style of a 
sub-community. In short it has provided physical, social, and psychological attachments for persons 
residing in those physical structures . 

The importance of good housing quality cannot be overestimated. As several studies point out, 
the quality of housing has a direct relationship on individuals' state of mental and physical health ,23 
their sense of human dignity and pride, and their degree of social interaction. 24 

In addition, as Martin Rein points out, "There is a long history of studies associating overcrowded 
and dilapidated housing conditions with loss of self-esteem , lack of privacy to permit concentration on 
school work, and loss of parental authority as children are forced to play unsupervised out of doors. " 25 
Thus, adequate open space and recreational facilities are amenities of utmost importance, if not critical. 
Rein adds "more recently the harsh limitations on movement and privacy are seen as contributing to low 
need for achievement and anti-social behavior." 26 



29 



Alvin Schorr has stated that the following effects may spring from poor housing: "a perception 
of one's self that leads to pessimism and possibly stress to which the individual cannot adapt, poor 
health, and a state of dissatisfaction. . . cynicism about people and organizations, a high degree of 
sexual stimulation without legitimate outlet, and difficulty in household management and child rear- 
ing ..." 2?rhese are but a few of the psychological effects spurred by deteriorated housing , which 
are compounded by overcrowded conditions . 



4). 



This chapter will look at the following 1970 quality of housing variables: (see Maps 1,2,3, and 

1. Relative Housing Value By Enumeration District 

2. Percentage of housing that is overcrowded (i.e. , 1.01 or more persons per room by Enu- 
meration District 

3. Percentage of Black occupied housing units by Enumeration District 

4. Percentage of housing that is substandard by Enumeration District (1972) . 

(The Department of Community Development, Housing Division, conducted a 1972 survey in 
which each dwelling unit was evaluated in the City of Gainesville. A score of 1 to 5 was as- 
signed to each unit based on its degree of habitability . 

1. Completely uninhabitable unit 

2. Habitable unit as long as major repairs were performed 

3. Habitable unit as long as minor repairs were performed 

4 . Unit that met minimum code requirements 

5. Unit that surpassed minimum code requirements 



30 



u 

D 
J 

< 
> 



z 

O.D 



h 








<j> 


(T 


i 


h 


< 

n 


(0 


i 







j 




l 



Id 
> 



u 

j 
j 

> 
ID 

Id I 
< 





2 

D 

z t 



— w 



< 

J 

Id 



>- H 

CD o 



mi. 



iiittifi 
•••••■•• 

•** aaaaa 
•■••••■a 
:::::::: 

tsssssts 

aaaa«aaa 

• «■**£■•• 

■ a t HI : z ■ 



i r:::::: 



: ; I : : 

::::: 

:::: : 
i : : : : 



:ii 



■ ri 



■•«■«■■ 
••••••■a 

iiiiim 
tiftci a 
aaaacaaa 



tiiitut 

ai ittti 



7 t 7 ; 7 r 
mill 
■■■■■■ 

; : -. :: - 



: 



■ ••ttt Tints 

■ fiitnitiii 1 '* 
iiim:nii:;i 

••CSX IIIIIIJV 

mi 

Illiltltl: 
::«:i HlfiMIII 



I 



........ 



I! 



II! 



37 



i ; t : : ; 7 : 

■■•■• :;r 

litis • 

asaaa ■ 

****** B*m« 



•■••■■■■■■■■I • 



m 












::: :::o: 



? a 2 a n 



MAP 2 

PERCENTAGE OF ALL UNITS 
WITH I.OI OR MORE PERSONS PER 



ROOM 



BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA -1970 



*»■!•■■■ HIIIIfK 



PO Q SJ H 
IWIIMI I ■ 

oooa***aa 
nooaji 1 1 »i 

qoob****b*b 
oooa*»**»a*aa 
300333aaoooooooooooooooooa»***».e.»8 

30033 3000D300O000OO000 300B** •♦*♦»■♦♦■ 

3003330O00QOO0O00O00003O0B*******e***BB 

00033330000000000a0000300B»»**»**»B****8 

3003J33300ooooooo03ooo3ooa»*»****»*e*»*«a 

OOOOJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQODOOB* •♦♦.♦♦»• »■**••■ 
3303303000000000000000 300a*»*»»»*****B**» 488 
300333 333030000003000030oa»**********B»«*.»*8 
330333000000OOOO000Q00000B**..»***»**.B******8 

aBBaaBBBaBaBBBBBBBBaBBBBaaaBBaaaaeaaaBaaaaseeeaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaBBeaaaaasaa'aaeaaaiaaBaBaBSBBaaaaB 

00OO3000030n3000300OO03008****»*******a» *»•♦♦*•♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦•BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB BBBB 

0000300003333000333003 3 il ************ a* *****•»»»»**♦»* . BO TOO 00O00000O000OO0OOB0 OOOOOOOOOOOO 00000 ■■ 
33033 300003300003030003008* •••••♦•♦♦♦♦B«"»** ♦••♦•♦♦»»♦»»» 8030000000000000003000800330000000000000 OOOBBe B 
■♦»***8**»**»»»****»****a00a00030a0OOO0O0OOOOriBOOa0OO:]000aOOO0O 0000 00 BBS 
.»»».*8* *»♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦••♦♦♦B0OO3UOOO03OQ0OOOO00OaB0O3OQa3a00000OO0 OOOOOOOOOBB 
3 BOO 3 330303 3 3000 3 3003 3 008* »»•♦♦• ***** 8* *♦♦♦*»♦♦»**♦♦♦♦ ♦BOOOOOOOSODOOOOOO 000008000000000000000 C00Q000 00 fl 
30O033033333003333)3333:)0e***»»****»»»B*»»»*»*»********»a003QO00O0000000000000B000D300000Da0OO OOOOOOOOa 
3000330000003000303003000a* ***»*******B*****»***********BJ00033 0330 3QO00300OOOBOO0OOOOOO0OOOO 00000000 B 
- 1 ) 1300D03OJn03300B* »*****♦♦**♦■♦ ••♦♦*♦»♦•♦♦♦♦♦* *a00000000000OOO0000000B0000000O0000O0 0O00000O8 
3O0O30OaOO3033030O30033OOa* »•♦♦•♦♦ ♦•♦♦8* »♦»*•♦♦♦••♦♦♦*♦• aOOO3300 8OO0 3003 00000O 00 00000 08 

aaaasaaoooo ooooo dooooo oo oob*»»»* .......a**.. *********** **too oo ooo oooooooooooooaooooooooooooo oooooooa 

aooo3aoooo3030oooooB»***»*****»*8***»*»*»******»»*aooooouo oooooooooooo 

**I623* *♦*•♦♦♦♦ •■|G2 2* ♦♦♦•♦••^|62l :)0 00000O30O3OO^i?JOOO0000O OO0OO0 



.BQ33 
. .833 



• OOOOOi' 

1000003 

iGIOOD! 



::sffi3iioS 



• a. j 3 



3030 



».******»• ,.(..............•.* B0O00 33Q 0OOOO0O000OB BO00O0I 

************ a* »»****»***»*»**B0O0000000O OOOOOOO BOOOOaBOOOOOOOOOOOB 

**»*****»***e*»**»***»******BO0O30OO0OOO OOOOOOO OOOBOOOOOOOOOCu^L.Oe 
************ •*•*•.••• *.****BOOOUJ0330 B OOOOO0O0OB 

888888 MM 8888888888 88 8888888888888888888888888888888888 8888888888 88 

***************** * ** ** ••♦•■OOOOOOOOOO 0000003000000 080000 0000008 

*********** *m**** ******** "800000000 oo oooooooooooo o ooooooa 
•..•.•.•♦».*B».*****»*»»*aooaoooooooo ooooooooooo I5TM oooo ooob 
*****»•*»***■****»*****»■ ooooooooooo ooooooooooo st. oooooo oa 
a ■ oooooooooooo oooooooa 

******** 0300 OOOOOOOOOOO 00000000000000008000000 0008 

•i ........ 6TM O0O0 "A|N 0O00OO0OO00000000I62O33003800300000B 

. ******** ST. 0000 ST. 00OnO0O0O0O0O00000O033D0O00800300330a 

..»*••»* 03 03 00000000000000000000000000080030033a 
♦8000000000800000000000000000000000000000800; 



asaeaasaa* 



::'62e::::::::::::a::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::Z"U?teititZZi& 

, a ■***«** bopoo 

i a I »t*..|iono 

J i63i !!! till till! ' 



all! '.'.'. 1 '.'. '.'.'.'.'.'.'. 11 1111! Ilia! 11! 11! 111! 63 ?.! 
b. !! .!! a 

iia uu i MMi a nH BBeReBeBB monn iwi o eaeieBaaBBB bth ave 



■ man 
km i in 



1634 ■898933'644 88666988 OOBO 

8698666088666866 99 69 job 3 



•aaasaaaaaeaaaa 

00000000000008003008 
O0OOOOOO0O0OOIi2>~e-VS 888888888 aaaBBBBBBB SB 
0300000300300b? Jl. 888888888 888888888888 
OOOOOOOOOO 30080 "»■■■■ ttltlUMIIl I 9 

UOOOr ""30 3 00 BOOBBBBBBaaaaB 888888 88 88 8 ee86eSflee«6i8t«8fl8B8H3B8B9HSB 

oooouS^'jooooBoaBSBBsaaaaaaaBBaBBBBBBs aeaoeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeaeaeaeae 

0000300000 0OOBBBaaBBB-""*lB8BBBBBBBBa 686808808 8066 6886 9989968H89B 
C1000000000 0JBBBSB8S1I6S6 IB BBSSSSSSSS S 968869668 ^8» 8899886989B9a99 

iMIiilllllllllllllllllll j e ^ Be ^ eeB Hee«ei e HH8e689«fl9&98 

aHliBBH8B8MBeeBBe8888BeB8BflHB8BflBHHMMn-'^--r-ir. ^h--.-- h .^h 

8998888888 9 999 98.69 8 8998888 98866889 888 69 68 8868 68666886988 
86888986699 99 988889986 6688 666966896 



I6S3 * 



eBBSSSSB 



881629... * 

*8SBB*.. ......... 

aaaaaaaaaBaB 



laaaaaauNi vensi 



:^?p:;s 



Ijesq L „ E 



888686866888898868808 086 8808 60860966 8886999 
866088888698881165 5 38888 88888688668688888 98 
9886f--'-tlM^- 1 -.«HHHH«88eB8888e698688988988686 

330000000030089888688668888868889 OOBO 88-39948888888 888868688868886668686888886 8666866668898888886 

■"13 0. "iVi.-O 1008 8 OOaO IJ 65?i||||||| 8 888 86 868866 6686 668 6888888 6 9?- 8 9 66H9 PRt>-t,e9669 8 

3O30<l635jjO3 8* ...•*».»» JOB 000000008)00000 3 BJ89H- ( -.-~»*aiail 8 88 8 8869 86898 98 9 99 696 689 69 6 6696 969-.4h.jh e-«i - - 9 

oooooooooooo a **.»**ooa ooooooonannooo sssaeaaasaaaeBsaaaesaBBsaaaaaaaasaaBicaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBaaasaeaaeeaaaseaBBaaB 

••8aaaaa«a8)aaBaBBBBBaaaaaaaaaiaaa)i649aBaaaaaoooooo3ooooa9888088aa88886688ea8a886e6e666a0868 

83 33 ...•••00 U CO OOOOOB OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO 08860 9 9 88 8 6888" a» -h 9 8 99 9* 6H«89 9 9888868 

STT S »• • - -- OOBO 0000000000088896866868888888888899886888888888888 

OF FI.OAI3A '646 .1645 88888989 0080 000000000000000888888660808888888888888888888688868888 

»us eo3o »♦»»** 88888668 oobo oooooonnnnoooooaBBB69869989aaBaaaaaaae8eaeeee8888eee8e 

,__ a 96886668 ooeo oaoao<i6S43O3oaaaa80e8888eeaaaaaaaaaaaaa88e888eee0ee00 

136 a***. »••*•* 80006669 OOBO O03OO00O3 J UlllllltSSaddt-ddl ■• 88888886668888 

a» •*•»»•»** 6 i648 «6 ooao Qooooonooi~ i ssBasaaaB66686899aassBasaflaaaaaaas6888998989 

■ »*.*•••*.• 88666868 OOBO OOOOOOO ISC SI SS ■ ■ SS89999H9P 9SS«a BaBBaBBBBaBaaSBS8886988 
a»* 1647 t* 688686088 OOB 000 OBBBBBB 888888888688 99 9 968BBB 8888888888 88888 8888688 
■••»•*•*** 88888BBHb llllllllllllllltllllllted|6594Slllltlia»IIIIMIIIII 88888 

a********* 88898 aaaasaaBBaaaaaaaaaaaaaBasaasa6aoo D 98eaaaaaaBBBflBBBaBBBBSB8aa aa 

■»..»*. ... Bsasor -:.- •••■(■■■■•■■■•■iiiiliii^esHBeHstiiiiiiiiiiiKiiiiii i aa 

a* • . * * •aaaasooooonoooaBBBBMBa^'aaaaaaaaaaaaeesaeeaaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaaaflsBaBBaaaaa aaa 
•**aM80ooonooooooooooBaBBBBBSB' | 6eo isB88BaBB668 99 69 9aBBBBSB8aaaaBB8aaaaaaBBaBaa aa 

1639 a*aooooooooooooooQnu.ioaBasaBaBaaaBaBaBaBBBBsa86686666BBBaBaaaaBaaaaaaaaaa8BB8Ba8 

• I > lllllllllllllllllllilll^eHHriBHMl 656 lllllllllllll 

BBBUOUOOOOCOOUOOOI X JHtlllt ■■tlllillllB88a«H«bHllilllllllllllHtltlUIIIII 

■ tl*»KU')OnOU|g4Q 0000000888BBBBBBaBBBaBSBBaBBBB66a889896BBBBflBBBBBaBaaaaaa88aaaSSSB 

aaa ***»aooooooouuu U ^oooooooaaaaBBaaaBaBBaaaasBSBBae86 9 89H69aaBaaBaflaasaBaaBBsaaMaaaaa 
■■a ....... Boooooooooooooc.^ mi -HeeseHHRaeiiniHii 



hl:J.-^ 



BBB 



8B8 
SBBBB 

aaaaaas 
aaaaaaaBB 
Baaaaaaaaaa 

aBBBBBBBBBBaa 

■■■■■■■■■mill 

miiiiiiiiinin 

BBBBB8BBS 

■ IIIMIII 

SBBBBBSBB 

aaaaaaaaa 



•Boooouooooooooorooouaa 

.80 ■ 1J 30C ?J00i n !.■.;■ luOIII 

♦B00OOO00r~-r=3O0O0OB 
♦•ooooaooL'pJrejnouuB*. 
•aonoooooooooooooooa*** 
•a oooooooooooooa*** 

•a**.« ooooooooa**** 



aa 



aaa 



INCLUDED 



TO EACH LEV 



LEVEL ONLY 



ABSOLUTE VALUE PANGE APPLYING 



EACH LEVEL 



20C0 4000 ftOCO 8000 

a a a a 

• HM"j(xiOri io iiiiiiiiiii tn i louQona 



Ths preparation of this map 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 





oooooncoo 




BBBBBBBBa 




ooooonooo 




aaaaBaaaa 


. ****2**»* 


000033000 




■■■■■■•■ 




ooooooooo 




aaaaaaaaa 


• ♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ 


oooooooon 


888889688 


■aaaaaaaa 


1 | 


18 


5 


« 


I *.2..l 


ID030OI 


I 66*96 1 


laasaai 


i ♦♦a** i 




1 68*98 1 


taasaai 


I..2..I 


1003301 


1884881 


laasaai 


1*»2»*1 


1003001 


188*881 


taasaai 


i ♦♦£♦♦ I 


I 003001 


1 68*88 1 




t**2»*I 


ID0300I 






1 »*2**l 


1003001 






1 **2**l 


100 3001 






1 .»2*.| 


I 00 3001 








100 3001 






I*. 2**1 


tOO 3001 
IO0 300I 
1003001 
I0030OI 






SOUSCE — U.S 


CENSUS 1970 





MAP 3 

PERCENTAGE OF BLACK 
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



eeseaeaea 



iSMBBa BBBStieaBBaBeBBai 



8HHHBBHBBHBHBHBRBH8BBH8H! 



Sill 

■■B 1629 

BBBB 



3BB86BBBB 



BBBBBBBBBBIIiBaBBSBBBSBBIBlBSBfiBBBBeSBBBBfefeCieBBflB'BBBBBBBaBaSBBebBBBBBBBBtlBBBBBBBBBBI&aBBBBBBBBBaBBBaB 



•1623 !!!*** 1622* *♦ 



aaa 
ea 
a as 



BBsBBaaaaaaflBa«BaBBBtiaBaBBeaBaaaeeBBeBeaaBa6aaBBBBeBeBaaaBBBaBBBBBflBaaaaaaeeBa 



aaaaaaaa 



BBRflBOBB 



BBeBBBBBaBaaaBBaaaaacBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBftiweetipiipeDecBBBeBeeaBBeeaBaBBeBeBBfiBBBaBaaBBBeBBBaflaB 
a 100000000010 ..*.♦*♦♦♦»*♦♦ a a 

•••• 1624 au.-| 62S tac)B0 ...»♦...♦*♦♦* II6SOIBBB 



I":' '.] ;; : ; i: 'l- ♦•••M652 *** 

eooooonoouao »♦♦*♦*»♦ 



s aounnon 

B B 

«HHHHHHHHHHFHMMHBBHHHftHHHMHHMMRBBHflFHMHHH 



RHOReilHHRBBHHBRBBBHB 



B aiBBIklBBBIIIIBIIVIllBI 

a»i ■■■■■i^^a ■■■••••■■•• 
*••■■>■■■■••■•••■■«•••••• 



00333 



; I63-* ; 



iaaaaauNivE°^i r 



.ii.n...m.i i 

....I635....B. ( .*,*....,1 J B 

* C« BBBBBiBaer«kBitBKBBBaaae»Bi<BfBBi>kiiiEiiiBfr«*eBfiaft 



BeBBBBBaBBaeeBeeBBBeBBaBeeBeBseaaBBB«BaBBaaBaaaaBBBaeeBBBBB6BBBBBBBB8B(iBB6nBs 
• •» t"B nid'.n loooooooooooooooaoooooa 

»•...... fl^M HiHSSKijunoonOOOOOOOCIOOnOob 



H8 noao .;»...<6S4^; tB ^ 



■..-••I'..,.- -..'.., - 



esaeeesesBaeeeaaaaonoarioo 

»i»8B89BB 88 8888688 BBOOIOn 



1639 m*» 

•a 

mam 

aaa. .a 






IIIIIIMII 



888888 



O'lOQDOlnoOl) 
OOOOIDOUOO 

.. ooe oo 



0B88H 

OBBBB 



1643 i m 



. — a. .ea 
.aa.aa 



B PHSOJFNCr 0I5T 



FS t* EACH 



■ <<m. luiinlll 

FEFT 



ft.00 8000 

■ ■ 

BBOUOOOOOOflOO 



The preparation of this map 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 







+ 


**+»»** 


n. 


U30100H 
















or 


nno'joon 










; : ! : : 




♦*?♦♦*. 


Of 


oanooo 
DD03000 


H 


lessens 


BBBBSBBBB 




10 










e 


9H BPPS q Q 












1 


. . t . . 




*♦£♦♦ t 




D0 3T0I 




aeoeei 


I »■ ■•■! 


? 


..1 .. 




•♦2**I 


l 


M330I 




99*881 


!•■■■.••! 


^ 


..1 .. 




♦»2**I 




00 1 101 






IIIMII 




..!.. 




**2+*l 




OOJOOI 








9 


..1 .. 


















..1 .. 




♦♦?♦« 1 














.. 1 .. 




**2»*I 












1 


..1 .. 




*•?**! 













MAP 4 

PERCENTAGE OF 
SUBSTANDARD HOUS ING 



UNITS 



BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1972 



39Tm AVE. 



■«■■■■>•■■•■■■■> ■■■■>■■■> ■■■■■■■■■■•■■■•■■■■■ ■■«■■■■■••> 



GAINESVILLE m 



■■■■•■■■■■■•■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■•i 



■ ■ 

■ ■ 

■ ■ 



}^?»?ns?ttt*'j?£?*iin«*sv$3i'*! 



•• ■ 

aaaaaa ■ 
aaaaaaaaaa 
eeBBaaeesM 
eeeeeeaeea ■ 
eaesaesaa 
eaaaaeeaa 
seaeaeeaa 
eeeaaaaea 
eeeaeeea 
eeeessaa 
eeeeeeeea 
eeeeeeaa 



■ Bae«*»e 

aaaeeeeaaaeBaeeeeaa 

3&aaesa8e8seB>iei8 eeB 



aaaaaBaaaaaBaaaaaaaeaBaaaaaasaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBaaaaae 



-a 1627. 



aaeaaaaaa I6i* ave. aee aaaaaa aaaa a aaa Baaaaaemaaj 



1631 



■*♦* |fi24»«»»«0C'-5'lOOiO »♦.♦*.♦♦♦.♦ 

> ,*WV* ; /t..»»BocL° : ??jooao •♦»»♦♦♦»*♦♦ 



ooooooao 

♦aaooojooooao 
. a&unjDooncuL' 
•euooooooooso 
♦ atiooooooooao 

♦BOOOOOnOOOBO 



1653. 



aaa a. 



, te 33 : 



***J628 ■ 

MM ■♦♦*♦• 

BaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauNi vessi i* 



b awBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaeaa e 

a aeBaeaeBaeas&Beeaeaeea daeaaaeseeeaeaeaeaeeaesaaeHe 

• Bt3*an-43r»e39999Bari9-i3des ^aeeeseniefiH^^e-fli.JHttHMH— h 

aaaeaeaa aaa <> < *eeeeeeeaanea aeeaaaaeaeeeeeaaeaeeeaeaeneH 

Baa9aeuai656>aaeaeeaaaeaa aaaeeaeeeeseeaaaaaaaaaedaoe? 

aaseaeeaaaaaeaeaaaaaaesga eea eee eeeaeaeeeaaBaaeeeeeeat) 

bb— — auuu uuuuueuuuuuu aaa 

•aaaaaa aaa eeeaaQeeeeaaaeRaeeeaeeeeeeepfteeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeH 

* •••••■ie89H99 ^^aaaaaaeaaaeaeaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeaep aeeeanseeeeae 

* •* . aaaaaaaaaa aaeHaeeaeeeBaa^aaaaaaaaaeeeeanaaHaaea^eeaaeeaa 

• i * ■■■■e^e^Hse aeaaaeeaBaaaesaeaeeeaeaaeeeeeeaeaaaaeneeaeneiaa 

♦ » aaaaaaaa saaa aaaaaeeeeeaaaeeaati655 aBeeeaeaaeeaaeeeeeaaaHaa 
............. ••■■■■■■aaaaaad saasaaaaeaaaaeaaaaadaaeaaaaeeeaeaaaeeaaeaeaaas 

•• .. .......... .■■■■■■■aa^aaj aaea^aaaaBesaaeaeeaeeeeaaeaeeaaeeeBeeeeaaaHaaa 

.............. a« i S5"7i»qee aaa aeaeaeaeaeeaeeeaeeaaeseeaaeeeeeeeeeeaaeaaeeaae 

•••••••••»• •*aaaaaaaaaaseaae aaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaeaeeeaaaaeaaaa 

aaaaaaaaaaaaasaBaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaaaBaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBaBBBBBaaeeBaBaaeeBeaa 
aaaaaaBaaaa)BaaaaaaaBsa)aeaaaaaasa8aaaaBBaeaaaaeai649aaasaBae8a8aaeaeaaauoGJ0 30Baaae8a8eaeaeaaeeeaaeeeeaaae 
a... ••••••■■■ aaaaaaaaaaBBaaa eseeeaeeeaasaaoooaosooaBaaaaaaaaaeaeeaaeaaaaeaaaa 

.****. aaaa aaeaaaaaaaaeaaaaooooooBOoaaaeaaaaaTieaaaaaaaeeaaea 

1645 ■•■■•■■■ eaae aeaeaeaaaeaeaeaaBaaooGnGoooaa^oooaaaaaaaaeaaaaee^eeeea 
a... •*»••» aaaaaaaa aaaa aesaeAaBAttBaBaeaaaao^nnusDoaoGnooooaaaBaeeBBBeaaaeaaae 
a ■■«■■■•■ ■■■■ 68a6e'i654R8aaaa«aaao<)JooiioBt)ooaoooooaaaatiaaea*tia*dae8 

a aaaaaaaa aaaa eaaaaaaaaaeeaaaaaaaaoooooaoaooaoooooooo aaeeeaeeeeaaea 

a a 16-4 8 «a aaaa aaeaaaa^eaaBaaaaaaaooooaoooaooooooooaoQaooaaeeeaaeaaea 

B aaaaaaaa aaaa eaaaaeaaBBaaaaBBaBaooaoaQoaaoGOooooiiOQOOOooaeBeaaaaeea 

a 164 7 aaaa a aaaa aaa aaaaaaaa aaaa a aaaa aaou jojoooboooooooujoooooogoo aaeaaaa 
a aaaaaaflaa aaaaBaaaBaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaocjess Joaoooonooooooooooooooo aaaae 

a aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaano j JJU joiuouaoii[)00ooooooooooooon aa 

a aaaaoo'iooaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaaaBBaaaaaoQOooooaoODOOoaoooooooooooooooooo aa 

a aaaBBBOOfjoc t-i j-.iaaBBaBaaa»«aaaaaaaaaaaaooojj30oaoo300ooo30oooonooooooooooo aaa 

a BBBBoonor.onQooo >uouaaaasaaaa- i660iaaaaaaaaou3oDoooaocnoonoooooooooooooooooooo bb 

a aoooononaoaosaoooGQoaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaaDaoaoooosoooooooonnnnnooooociooooooo 
a en in a aaa aaaaaa aaaa aaaaaaaaaooooooooaoooooooo I6S9 ooooooooooooo hawthorns 

• IIDJOUJidu. id- (ji'PUO ^ illlllllflllllllllllllUvnj.ljO ijtlil iuoni)OOOOOGOOUUUOOnriOOOQ QO. 

. . aonoojLioo 1640 ooo'jOLioaaaaaBBaaaaBaaaaaaaaeaaoooooooooBOOOOooooooooooooooQoooooco 



.1634 ., .BBB8aea<644 aaaaaaaa aaaa 
iiiiiiiiiiiiiinaiii aaaa 

IIIIIIIIIIIII^ • BBBB 

■< i ,-n-n.) jB 

'I63S33D0B»»»< 



1646 | 



1636 



saaaaai 



..OOOOO' 



1643 



ooooooao OOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

■ •aaeeaaaaaaaaeaaBB aaaa (i uojoooo ooo booo oooo onoo od 

■ 8 80000000000000 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBPOOOOOOOOOOOOaOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
eoooooooooooaoooonaaoooooo.TjoojDooaooooooooooooo 
a ooooooooooooooaooooooaoooooooooaooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooaoooooooooooooooooaooooooooooooo 
uooooooooooaooooooooooooooooooaooioooooooooo 
oooooooooaaoooooooooooooooooooaoooooooooo 
ooooooooaaoooool66loooouoaooooaoooooooooo 
ooooooaoooooooodoooooooooooooboooooooooo 
oooobooooooocouoooooooooooooboooooooooo 
oob ooooooooooooooaoooo a 
■ ooooooooooooo a 
a ooooooooo a absolute value range allying 
a oooooooooo a ('maximum* incluoed in 



TAl AQSOLU 



ANGE APPLY 



2000 *000 6000 8000 

aaaa 
laaooooooooooaaaaaaaaaao oooooooooo 

Feet 



The preparation of this map 
was financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



saaBBBBflaa bb 



ooooooo 




Beaeasaae 


BBBsaaaaa 


ooooono 




aeaaeaeea 


■asBBBBaa 


OOOO30O 




8888*8988 








8888888(49 


■aaaBBBBB 


naonnnn 


ID 


Beaaeseae 


III! 


ft 




« 


5 


100 300 




iee*eei 


laasaai 


100300 




1 88*881 


1 ■• ••! 


too 300 




189*881 


laasaai 


I0030O 




188*881 


■ ■ ■•! 


IO0 30O 






laasaai 


100300 









SOURCE- OEPT.OF COMM. OE V . , I V I S t ON OF HOUSING 
INSPECTION. CITV OF GAINESVILLE 



While 1,2, and 3 involved substandard units, 4 and 5 constituted existing standard units) . 

Results of Correlations 

In examination of the above-mentioned variables , the correlational analysis pointed out the 
following relationships: 

1. A high degree of association between the percentage of Black occupied housing units 
per district and the percentage of housing per district that is overcrowded (i.e. , 
housing with more than 1.00 persons per room) . The higher the percentage of over- 
crowded units per district, the higher the percentage of Black occupied units. 

2. Some degree of association between the percentage of Black occupied housing units 
per district and the percentage of substandard housing units. As the percentage of 
Black occupied units increased per district, so did the percentage of substandard 
housing units. (It should be pointed out here that these two correlated variables 
were derived from two different sources and in two different years. The first var- 
iable, the percentage of Black occupied units per district, was taken from the 1970 
Census of Housing. Variable number two, the percentage of substandard housing 
units per district, was determined through the above-mentioned 1972 Housing Survey 
as conducted by the Housing Division , Department of Community Development. With 
respect to the utilization of this second variable , this and other correlations were 
accomplished with the basic assumption in mind that any change in overall housing 
quality since 1970 would be slight) . 

3. Weak relationships were found between: 

a. Relative housing value per district and: 

(1) . the percentage of overcrowded housing per district (-) ; ^8 
(2). the percentage of substandard housing per district (-); and 



35 



(3) . the percentage of Black occupied housing per district (-) . 

b. The percentage of overcrowded housing per district and the percentage of substandard 
housing per district (+) . 

Possible Areas of Future Investigations: 

1 . A livability index which can include measures of: 

a. Environmental quality (density, overcrowding, air, water, noise, solid wastes) , soil 
quality, timber, wildlife, minerals, living space, sense of "territory," privacy, street/ 
sewer conditions, utilities / facilities , transportation/communication, leisure time facilities; 

b. Public safety factors (locations of crime) ; sense of physical and psychological security 
with reference to neighborhood, block, tract, district, etc.; 

c. Land use mixes; residential stability; 

d. Spatial relationships (between tracts, districts, neighborhoods, blocks , individual sites , 
and even rooms with respect to functional and aesthetic considerations, types of families, 
landscaping, community facilities, schools, etc.); 

e. Sense of "community feeling" (or degree of sentimentality towards a neighborhood, block, 
district, tract, community, etc.); 

f. Resident participation (in social-political activities of the block, neighborhood, community, 
etc.); political awareness, sense of justice, freedom, equality, and community concern, 
and 

g. Costs of pollution with reference to vegetation, health, aesthetics, values of property, etc. 



36 



2. A utility index which can include measures of: 

a. Degree of obsolescence; material quality of housing; neighborhood quality of housing; 

b. The availability of decent, safe, and sanitary (standard) housing; 

c. Financial ability of displaced residents to benefit from such housing; 

d. Accessibility of standard housing to employment, schools, churches, public transpor- 
tation and other amenities such as doctor, dentist, and child care centers; and 

e. Neighborhood stability /safety. 



37 



FOOTNOTES 

20 Hudson Guild Neighborhood House and New York University Center for Human Rela- 
tions and Community Studies, Human Relations in Chelsea, 1960. Report of the Chelsea Housing 
and Human Relations Cooperative Project, as listed in the office of the Governor, The Governor's 
Task Force on Housing and Community Development, and the State of Florida Department of Com- 
munity Affairs, "Housing in Florida," 4, 84. 

21 ibid. 

22 Frieden, p. 56. 

23 R. R. Blake and others, "Housing Architecture and Social Interaction," Sociometry (1956), 
pp. 133-139. 

2 %. M. Petty, "Crowding: A Selected Bibliography," Council of Planning Librarians No . 
240 (1971) . 

2 ^Martin Rein, "Social Science and the Elimination of Poverty," Journal of the American In- 
stitute of Planners (May, 1967), XXXIII, 149. 

26 Ibid. 

27 Alvin Schorr, "Slums and Social Insecurity," Research Report No. 1_, Division of Research 
and Statistics Administration (Washington, D. C, 1963), p. 31. 

28 The symbol (+) denotes that a positive correlation was found to exist. That is, as one 
variable increases, so does the other variable being correlated. Similarly, it may also indicate 
that as one variable decreases, the other variable decreases also; the symbol (-) on the other 
hand, indicates that an inverse relationship exists. That is, as one variable increases, the other 
decreases. 



38 



Chapter 5 
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS 29 

Status refers to that social position which a person occupies resulting from his age, sex, 
marriage, occupation, or achievement. It may also refer to an individual's partipular standing 
in a community . 

It is not only in the nature of our society to anticipate different behavioral responses from 
persons holding different statuses, but also to expect, at least in theory, that everyone strive for 
a high socio-economic status. These behavioral patterns, or roles as they are commonly called, 
are those which persons are expected to perform for each status or set of statuses. 

For our society to function normally, widespread acceptance of statuses and roles must be 
achieved. "Much of the behavior of man consists of acting in a manner designed to preserve or 
enhance his social status." 30 It appears that nearly every person is concerned with his self-image 
or feelings of worth. They are often dictated by friends, peers, and society as a whole. Much of 
man's everyday behavior is devoted to preserving and promoting both his socio-economic status 
and personal worth. 

"In a society like ours, dominated by pecuniary values, the individual's ideas of his personal 
worth are profoundly affected by the level of his income and the prestige of his occupation. His con- 
ception of the social order is strongly colored by his position in it. If it is high , if he has wealth and 
possessions , and if he is moving upward on the scale or at least maintaining a high position, he is 
likely to feel contented with the socio-economic system and to believe that it distributes rewards in a 
just manner in accordance with individual merit. Criticisms or expressions of discontent by persons 
not so well situated as himself may strike him as threats to his security , as dangerous and subversive 
doctrines. "31 

In American society, income is the primary tool that allows persons to secure basic life necessi- 
ties (such as food, clothing, and shelter) as well as psychological ones (sense of financial security and 
personal worth) . 



39 



Those persons who are purportedly (temporarily or permanently) incapable of acquiring 
adequate incomes through employment and require public assistance might not realize financial 
and/or psychological security, thus they become the welfare recipients of our society. Because 
of the above-mentioned factors, it can be surmised that those persons experience a relatively low 
socio-economic status. This section will inspect, then, the following 1971 household income var- 
iable (see Map 5) : 

5. Estimated percentage of households that earned less than $6 ,000 a year by traffic zone. 

In addition, the following welfare recipiency variables will be analyzed (see Maps 6,7, and 
8): 

6. The rate 32 of families receiving aid (to families) with dependent children (AFDC) by 
enumeration district; 

7. The rate of persons receiving aid to dependent children (ADC) by enumeration district; 
and 

8. The rate of persons receiving aid to the disabled (AD) by enumeration district . 

It should be emphasized that this section presupposes the importance of adequate incomes, 
adequate employment opportunities, and job satisfaction in order that individual and familial se- 
curity might be enjoyed, that higher socio-economic statuses might be achieved, and that the 
number of poverty families might be reduced. 

Results of Correlations 

With direct concern to housing quality , the correlational analysis provided results that 
divulged strong relationships 33 between the following: 

1. Between overcrowding (i.e. , percentage of units with 1.01 or more persons per room) 

and welfare recipiency (i.e. , Aid to Families with Dependent Children , Aid to Dependent 



40 



MAP 5 

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS 
THAT EARNED LESS THAN &6pOO PER YEAR 

BY TRAFFIC ZONE 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA-I97I 




100 •/. 



SOURCE' FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
EDWARDS a KELCEY 
1071 DATA TABULATIONS 

GU.ATS 
TECHNICAL REPORT NO 3 
APPENDIX S 



MAP 6 

AID TO FAMILIES 
WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - I9TO 



...a.. 
...a.. 


. .■■ 

..■.a 

...a.aa 



































a i6i6 » 

a ana 

* aa aa 

aa a aa aa 



■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaa j«r* ave. aaBaBaaBaaaBaaaaBaBBaaaaaaaaa 



aajaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaaBBBaaaa. 



■ aa 



aaaa aa 

aaaaa ■ a 



i |623"*-« 1622 B. 1621... 



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. J::::::::: i»*r ::j" 

a a ...a a 

a a m a 

imeiiiiiiNiiuiiiitint iriHiitieiiiiici iiiiitn 



•aaaaaaaaaaaaaa 



.|l6BOiQ0D0OD00O00OOO0OO0 00 

•a. . . aaoooooooooooooooooooo 
.a. .aaoooooooooooooooooooo ♦ 

. a . . BO0OOOOOOOOOO00O00OOO0 » 

.a-aooooooaooooooooooaoooo • 

.BBa30000| ft c ft >000000000000 ♦ 

.m i I'liinn y. 30 i(innnnnrnira\nfi * 



rcrooooo oooooooo 



Boooo3c !P~JToaoooooo 

BOUOO'J KJDCi lOuBOOCOOJ 

aooooooooooooaoooooo 

.BOO 0000 0000 OOBOOOOOO 



. . . .aeaooooao 
. . . eeeeoaoooo 
— aeeaoooaoo 
. . aaeeBoooooa 
.aeeeeaoooooo 

BW HSw«a0OOO00 
>-~"J«00300D 



bHSHHRFfflBBBR' 



I6*»6 * I64S 



•♦*♦ aaa aaaaa a a aaaaa aa aaaa a aa aaaa m 

saaaaaaBoooooooooooaoooooooaa******** 
♦ ♦♦*» oooooortoaoooaaoooooDaoaaa* ***** 
oooooooooooa*aoooao3ooa**aaa*** 
oo[iQuouooGorH)otiB»»aooooooooB*»***aa* 
ooooorv-jT-aooona^eooaoooaoa*******^ 
oooooc,'Ji^?t)ooaB***aooDoooooa* **. + ..* 
oooooooooonoBB*»**aooooooooa»***»»*» 
oor)ononn l -nBB»****»aooooooooB*****»*» 
oooooooobb****** »»aooooooooa* ♦*»*»♦* 



ol659 M 



je38 L „ E * 



»***boooo0o0ob* 
***»boooooooqb* 

M.Hi).10Q0300i» 
****BOOOOOO0OB* 

♦♦♦♦aooooooooe* 

MHOODOOGJOOt. 

••♦boooooooodb* 

♦» 110000 oodoob* 
♦aoooooooooooa* 



aaa 
aaaaa 
aaaaaaa 



VALUES REFLECT RATE PER THOUSAND 



aaaaaBBBB 
••• 

aaaaaaaBB 



2000 *000 6000 aooo 

■ aaa 

BBBOOOOO0OO00BBBBB8BBBBO0000O0OO00 



The preparation ol this map 
was financed lit part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



a a 

■ a 

a aa 
a a 

...a aa 

aaa 

aa aa 



FREQUENCE OIS 



TAL ABSOLUTE VALUE 



TION OF DA 



NCE APPLY IN 







OO0O00000 






aaaBBBBBa 






OOOOOOOOO 






aaaaaaaaa 








1 


jeB*aee9 


•■■■■■■■ 










j eeeee pH 






»♦♦♦+♦♦** 


OO0O0OO00 


f 


eeeee&eQ 






t * 6 


a" " 




- 


_ 


1 


• ■*,••! 1**2**1 


100300 I 




iee»eei 


I8B5BBI 


2 


.. 1 ..1 1**2**1 


1003001 








1 

» 

5 1 

6 

7 

I 

9 1 


..1 ..I 1**2**1 

..1 .. I 1**2**1 

.. t . .1 I**Z**I 

.. 1 .. 1 I *»2**I 

..1 ..1 

■•!•■] 

■•!••! 


I003OOI 
100 3001 








3 1 
* 1 


. .1.. 1 

SOURCE — COUNTY WELFARE DEPT. 





AID TO 



MAP 7 

DEPENDENT 



CHILDREN 



BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



-■ ■■■• 

■ ■ ■■•■ 

•■ a. .a 

■a a. . .■■ 



■ » • ■■ ■ 

a a 

a MR GAINESVILLE 

a ■ MUNICIPAL 

a a »■ airport 



aaaaaaaaaa 



\V. '. '. .'is??; ; ; :!: ; ; ; : : 1.623 : ; ; ; ; :S; <f ?.•; 



:«w::::::::" 



1620 a. 



aaaaBaBaaaaaaaaaaaaei 



• ■ •.---■■qooooooooooooooooooo 

• a c.P=y_>oooooooooooooriciooooo 

. ■■ ■■•«•■■• a. .aoooooooooo ooooo ooooo o * 

. t r* few ;~t-: • • • -a. .aoonoooooooooooooooooo * 

.a I65 * 1651 . , . .■.■3nr)0G0OOO0OOnoO00O0OQO * 

• a* •■■•■■■.>.... BBO 3 00 00000U OOC 1, !) 3 * 

.a BOODOOt'O 1656000000000000 ♦ 



■ B«j98ee8 8eeeeeaef*&=>e9 

.aeaweaa i644eaa6B9ee 
. aeese48eeeeees^?8»4Et 
BaHeeea8t*PBoefle9*E>3^ 




•aaauNivEosi 



aaaa aa aaBBaaBBaaaaBaeaaaaaBBaBBaai i649i bbbbbb. 



B* I657B00300Q •»»»♦ 

... .•*»«**»»soooooo ♦♦.«* 
aaaaaeaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 



•■••■■•■••■ 



■aaeBBaaaaaaaaa 



1646 .1645 



.1654. . 



■ . .aoaaaaaaaaaaooaaa** •♦•♦•*♦♦ 
. . aoo— a aaaa a a a ooooo— ******** 

. . an o ■■■■■■■■ mo oo ono oaa****** 
.auooaaBBBBaaaBOOOOOOoooaaa* *• 
.. . .aaoooosaaaBiBBBBGOooooaoooo aa* 
..BBooojooBaaiBaaaBBO'JOOooooQoocGoi 
aaoooDooooaaaiiaaaaaooooooooooooooo 
i&nooDO ■ ■■■■ •••■iiiii»^:cc:? ioooocoo 
ooooo JDOoooooaeBrfiS^iaBOoooooooacooooG 



bbboooooougoooooooooooobbb. 
80000000000 3000-) 3oooo0bbbi 
80000000000000000 



Boojaoooof 1660)00000 001 
BOOaooooooooouooooooooi 
boooo aoooooooooo ooooo ai 
BO O O OO OOOO O OOOOOO OllOBI 

boooooooooooo 



-JBBOOOOOOOO 

■■•■ooaooooooooooooooooooaooo aa 
•■bboooooooooooooooooooooooooo a 
aaaaoooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
aaaaoooooooooooooooooooooooooo 

■ 1BB0 00 0000011656*000 DO OOOOO 000 

aaaaooDOOOOOUuuuuooooooooooooo 

00300000OOO0OOO00O0000O0O0 



BOOooooooooooooooooooaaaeaaeaBBaaoosooooooooonooooooooooooa aaa 

■OOOOOOOOQOOOJ."' ■ id tllilllllllttUODOCOOnOOOUC as 

a ■ aooooooooooooo aa 

■eeeeaeeefieeBBeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeaooooooooooooo bbb 

aaeeaeeeeeeeneBB»eBBeu^e6B8eHaBe8BBonooooooooo90 aa 

a BseeeBBBBeeBeeaeBeBBBBBBeBeaBeeaooooooooooooo aa 

a BBBBBBBBBBeBBaBeeeBBBeaBeeeeeflHBooooooooooooo aa 

b ee8SBBB8PeeaHBe»3eeweeae8886«8aoooouoQoooooo aa 

a Beeeeseeaeeeeeee jeeeeeeeeeeeeeaooooooooon a 

888888888688886 1 56 1686 868866 88B0OO 0000000 I 

^wBHifibHH^^HeeeeeeeeeseeaeaBioo ooooo ooo 

88B 6666868666888888868 B 

■ 8888886888888 ■ VALUES REFLECT RATE PER THOUSAND 

B 808868088 B 

a 6868668686 B ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE »' 



( ■ 



I «:J- 



l&A 



■■■■■■BBS 



■ PERCENTAGE OP TOTAL ABS3LUTE 

a 
a 

■ 26.96 18.26 



E RANGE APPLV 

IS. 26 2A 



6000 6000 

■ a 

•■■•■OOOOOO OOOOO 



• aa 
aa aa 
a a 



VALUFS In EACH 



OOOOOOOOO 688688688 BBBBBBBBB 

OOOOOOOOO 868888888 BBBBBBBBB 

000033003 888848899 ■■■■5BBIB 

000000000 868988888 BBBBBBBBB 

000000000 888868868 BBBBBBBBB 



The preparation of this map 
w*9 financed in put through 
■ comprehensive planning grant 
from th« Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



I0030OI 
100 3001 
IO0 30OI 



SOURCE--COUNTV VEIFARE OEP 



AID TO 



MAP S 

THE DISABLED 



BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 




■ ■ 
■ * 



•ItESVlLLE 



•• 39tl »*E. «»■«»■—■—■•—>———■—■ 






aaaae** 


mm f* m a* t ■ aa ■• 


aaaaew 

1621 


mm aaajaav aamwa • aa aaaeamBiM M 

■ Btl 

■ 

■ 
■ 
































■ 
■ 
■ 
■ 
• 
1619 


























































■ 
■ 













1 JTM 

ST. 






tnm-f.n 


■ .. 

■ .. 

■ .. 
■■• 


;i62*;;;;J 

". '. '.'. '.'.'. '. '. '. a 
a 



iwawo w oo — m 



MinrMvnMr 




•ret aaeaaaaoaa a a 



t ' 

ooooaoooooooooooooooooooso j oaee 8 eeeaes a 
ooa oooooooooooooooooor ~ 
■ ooooooooooooo 
a ooooooooo 



2000 

a a 

•■■•■■■■■■ 



a a 
.aaea 



VALUES REFLECT 



JATE PER THOUSAND 



■aamaaaaaaaa 



»CaC=NT*Sf O* TOT*. ABSOLUTE VALUE OANGE APPLVIMC TO EUCH LEVEL 
20.09 21.7b 21. 76 21.76 13.9* 

POI1T VALJES I* CACh LEVEL 
3*5 

3U0:O3CC. -^*^r5^ ■■■■■■■>■ 

r::^L'3 0C3 se"*-!''^-' *■■■■••■• 
000032000 Meee*ee4e saeeseeae 

■..-.:. ?:..".■ - >- »* i? ? - e - - ■■■•■■■■■ 

HCOMDCO.l eS «flAS« ■■■■■■■■■ 



The preparaOon of this sap 
was financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
□TOO) the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development 



1 ..1 .. I 1*****1 

I ..I .. I !♦•,?•♦ I 

t ..t ..! l*»2**l 



100 300 I 
1 03 3O0 1 

IO3 30CI 
IP033CI 



SOO»CE--COUNTY »EL"=A«E MOT 



Children, and Aid to the Disabled) . As overcrowding was found to have increased per 
district, so did welfare recipiency. 

2. Between percentage of families receiving AFDC and the average housing score, the percent- 
age of substandard units, and the relative housing value. As the percentage of families per 
enumeration district receiving APDC increased, the average housing score per district de- 
creased, the percentage of substandard housing units per district increased, and the rela- 
tive housing value per district decreased. As might be expected, persons receiving welfare 
aid tended to live in districts with lower quality housing units. 

3. Between the percentage of Black occupied units per district and the percentage of families/ 
persons receiving welfare assistance per district (AFDC, ADC, and AD) . As the percentage 
of Black occupied housing units increased per enumeration district, so did the percentage of 
persons and families receiving welfare assistance. 

Also in reference to housing quality, the resultant information disclosed there to be at least some rela- 
tionship between: 

1. Welfare recipiency and the ratio between average Black housing value to the average total 
housing value per district. As the percentage of persons/families receiving welfare (AFDC, 
ADC, and AD) increased, so did the above-mentioned ratio; 

2. The percentage of families per district receiving AFDC and the relative housing value. Rela- 
tive housing value decreased as the percentage of families increased. 

Weak relationships were uncovered between the percentage of persons per district receiving ADC and 
AD and: 

1. The ratio between average Black rent/average total rent per district (+) ; 

2. The relative housing value per district (-); 



45 



3. The average housing score per district (-); and 

4. The percentage of substandard housing units per district (+) . 

Table 2 depicts relationships between welfare variables and those that indicate other than housing 
quality characteristics . 



46 









Table 2 
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN WELFARE AND OTHER SOCIAL VARIABLES 






• 


• 


- 






- 


Rate of unlawful behavior 
Re: crimes of violence/ 
district 


Rate of unlawful behavior 
Re: property crimes/ 
district 


Rate of unlawful behavior 
Re: minor crimes/ 
district 


Percentage of families 

with children who are less 

than 18 years old that are 

not husbacid-wifc type families/ 

district 


o 

h 
to 

•5 

(A 
OJ 

■ 

« 
OJ 

Q 


Average grade 4 reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 


Average grade 6 reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 


Average grade 8 reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 


Average grade school 
reading comprehension 
test score/district 


c 

OJ 

E 

OJ 

u 

TO 
C tj 

.2 w 

OJ -^ 

en a 

» o 
to u 

CO (0 

oj •* 

> V, 

< 8 


oj 3 

"re <2 

e -a 

OJ ^~ 

w to 

<►. w 

o ~ 

oj E 
CO m 
re *? 

C -a 

OJ OJ 

u -a 
u re 

OJ OJ 

- C 


u 

ss 

tO TJ 

£> <. 
to (0 
3 i) 

•C ^ 

°1 

to 

o *"" 

2 o. 

OJ 

oj ■r' 

a. * 


Percentage of females that 
have incurred div./sep./ 
district 


Percentage of occupied units 
with a telephone available/ 
district 


Percentage of persons re- 
ceiving aid to dependent 
children/district 


Percentage of persons re- 
ceiving aid to the disabled/ 

district 


i 1 u 
OJ "5 "u 

u •* — 

III 

E | g 

Si? 

CD - ;-; 

g c c 
u ~ ~ 


1 brccntage of persons 
Ipcpivir.g aid to dependent 
l -.llcren/district 


S 

+ 




W 

+ 


S 

+ 










W 




H 

+ 


H 


H 

+ 


H 


sv 


H 

+ 


H 

+ 


1 icrcentage of persons 
: -living aid to the 
issbled/district 


S 

+ 




W 

+ 


S 

+ 








s 


W 




H 

+ 


H 


H 

♦ 


H 


H 


SV 


H 

+ 


1 ercentage of families 
eceiving aid to families 

1 nth dependent children/ 
istrict 


H 


W 

+ 


H 

♦ 


s 

+ 




s 




s 


w 




H 

+ 


H 


H 


H 


H 

+ 


H 

+ 


SV 


V = Same variable 
Ik = High degree of associa 
= Some association 
• = Weak association 


tion 



































Hank spaces indicate that little or no relationship exists 
= Positive relationship 
= Inverse relationship 



47 



Possible Areas of Future Investigations : 

1. Definition of what is "adequate" employment, "economic security," 

2 . Local price indexes , 

3 . Local poverty levels , 

4. Labor force participation , 

5. Income variations by block, neighborhood, district, tract, etc. , 

6. Identification of groups, classes, communities, etc. , of persons in need of or deserving 
public assistance (age, race, sex, education, family size, etc.) , 

7. Available, existing and desired employment possibilities by enumeration district, census 
tract, etc. (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled, and professional labor positions) , 

8. Percent unemployed, underemployed per district, tract, etc. , 

9. Work environment, work safety, work challenge, 

10. Personal as well as labor skills, and 

11. Amounts of time and monies devoted to particular cultural, leisurely, and recreational 
activities . 



48 



FOOTNOTES 

29 Toward A Social Report , U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
(Washington, 1969). Economic status is universally held to be a social indicator. D. C. 
Miller, Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement (New York, 1970) , p. 169. 
"-The socio-economic position of the person affects his chances for education, income, 
occupation, marriage, health, friends, and even life expectancy-" 

30 Timotsu Shibutoni, Society and Personality (Englewood Cliffs, 1961), p. 270. 

31 A. R. Lindesmith and A. L. Strauss, Social Psychology (New York, 1966), p. 621. 

32 The rate is calculated by determining the total number of cases per district and multi- 
plying them by 1000. This result is then divided by the total population of that enumeration 
district. It represents .therefore , the number per thousand. 

33 As previously mentioned in Chapter 2, in this study a strong relationship was assumed 
to exist when the "r" equalled .775 or better (or "r 2 " equalled .600). Some relationship was 
assumed to exist when the "r" equalled at least .671 (or "r 2 " equalled at least .450). Corres- 
pondingly, a weak relationship was considered to exist when the "r" equalled at least .548 (or 
the "r^" equalled at least .300). 



49 



Chapter 6 
FAMILY DISORGANIZATION AND INDIVIDUAL DEVIATION 



Modern society is seriously hampered by various behavioral patterns that constitute major 
societal threats or social problems. Juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, prostitution, crime, 
familial desertion/separation/divorce, mental illness , underemployment - unemployment, preju- 
dice, and discrimination can be considered major social problems. 

Social problems can arise when various situations are considered to be threatening, and 
those "threatened" persons feel that they can do something about it. 

Society is made up of numerous small social groups. The most important small social group 
is the family which is responsible for protecting, rearing, and socializing its newest members. In 
addition to family groups, however, neighborhood, community, business and professional groups 
also strongly influence the maintenance and enhancement of certain important social values and 
standards . 

Group disorganization often results when individual members depart from the group's norms 
such that the inter-relations that bind these groups together at least begin to break down. 

Social disorganization which is nearly inescapable due to rapid changes in technology, in- 
dustry, and degree of urbanization occurs when large scale group disorganization takes place. 
Social disorganization may be evidenced by large scale involvement in such socially unapproved 
activities as drug addiction, juvenile delinquency, prostitution, etc. In addition, family disor- 
ganization may be indicated by those families that are broken by separation, divorce, desertion, 
or death. 

Because persons often cannot control or understand the nature of the social problems which 
they experience, they are often overcome and sometimes resort to the major social-psychological 



50 



pathologies outlined above. When these problems become large-scale, it might be said that social 
disorganization has occurred/is occurring. 

Since our society is made up of individuals with complex human response patterns which are 
conditioned by the external pressures of the social environment, they might exhibit behavioral pat- 
terns that are seemingly disorganized. When a person demonstrates seemingly disorganized be- 
havior that departs from group norms and cannot be adequately predicted, he is said to be "deviant." 
Individual deviation has been said to occur when a person feels that he has failed in performing a 
basic role and begins to show disorganized behavior. However, individual deviation can be organic 
in nature and even manifested at birth. These persons are considered to be subnormal in that they 
oftentimes are brain damaged and mentally retarded. Because of their mental deficiency, they are 
generally only partially able to function adequately in normal social situations. 

However, most persons do not experience problems paralleling this, but some do exhibit be- 
havioral patterns not prescribed as customary by the community in which they exist. These persons 
are often referred to as psychotics, neurotics, or eccentrics. A psychotic can be described as an 
"individual in whom the communication process has been broken down and who becomes incapable 
of acting as a member of a group by reason of this fact." 35 This person suffers from mental confusion 
which may take the form of delusions, depression, apathy , hallucinations, destructiveness (of self 
and others) , elation, and stupor. 

A neurotic, on the other hand, does not suffer from as radical a break with reality or the ex- 
treme social incapacity that characterizes the psychotic ?^ 

An eccentric can be defined as a person who displays a number of deviant behavioral patterns 
which are generally considered different yet not requiring psychiatric attention. When deviant be- 
havior comes to be considered by the community as harmful, labels of unlawful, "subversive, de- 
generate, or immoral" ^^may be applied. 

This section will inspect the following 1970 unlawful behavior indicators (see Maps 9, 10, and 
11): 

9. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to crimes against property by enumeration district; 



51 



34 



10. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence by enumeration district; 3 ** 
and 

11. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to minor crimes by enumeration district; 

(It should be noted that these maps will reflect the residential location of the persons committing 
crimes as opposed to the location of the crime scene. Hence the following title (s) of maps: Resi- 
dent Address of Persons Committing Crimes of Violence, Property Crimes, and Minor Crimes by 
Enumeration District) . 

Map 12 purports to show at least some location of crime characteristics by depicting the 
police zones, as delineated by the Gainesville Police Department, requiring police services. The 
map shows the percentage breakdown and origin of calls for police service. The map reflects all 
calls for police service (except motor vehicle accidents) for the year 1970. There were 30,340 
calls in 1970. Zone 1 had 7.3 percent of the calls; zone 2 - 14.0 percent; zone 3 - 13.6 percent; 
zone 4 - 17.4 percent; zone 5 - 11.4 percent; zone 6 - 11.0 percent; and zone 7 had 25.3 percent 
of the total calls. 39 

The following family disorganization indicator will also be considered (see Map 13) . 

13. The percentage of families (with children less than 18 years old) that are not husband- 
wife type families 40 by enumeration district. 

These variables are important to examine in that they could provide insight as to types of 
programs that might be considered for improvement of the overall community mental and physical 
health, the reduction in crime, and the provision of more and safer public streets. 

Results of Correlations 

With reference to housing quality, the results indicated that there existed a strong relation- 
ship between: 



52 



MAP 9 

RESIDENT ADDRESS OF PERSONS 
COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE . FLORIDA - 1970 



>•■»■■)•>••■ •■•••■»BBiMB«i»aBBBiBBB«iiB>BaiteBeBBeaaaiBBaiBaflaaBaeeBBGBBeeBfiBaBBBfteBBaB»aBBBMBem 



•BBaaBBiaBaBBBBBaBBBaaBaaBai 



♦♦♦B**************** 0000031 




♦ ..», »,.,.»,...,.. .+ (33303333 


...!..,,».»...,♦,, 000300038 


!■»♦■♦»♦♦♦»♦»♦ + »♦* + ooooooooa 


«♦.,,♦,♦♦..*». ooooooooa 


•+*••♦»♦♦*♦*»♦♦** 3^"333a 


»*!£."?»++++++»* OODO0330B 


**+****+*++*+** c DnsoB 


..H..t,M*.t. 00030u3B 


**•■• OOOOOOB 


■303303300000000008 


130aio3 0033031 I6IB30B 



. BaeaaasaaeaaaaBBB 



BBBBBBaBBBaaaaBBBBBBaBIBaBBBBBBBBaeBBeBBBBeeaBaBB 



f^SOMHIIlIIlllll 



'1652 **** '1651* 



ISBRBIBdHa 



anPteoflBRfJHeHPRRRnetf* 



HiBaaRHOBBRHB^SBBeeaBflRHHaBUBflaBeeaaBBaignBHaHaB 



• BBSB 

)•••■•••• 

•■■«■■■■* 



9999 



• a* 



9889 

BBS 



F.3»13» 



asaaaa 889R988BBB9999989998999999eB 

....... .,,..»■■ St ■■■«■■■■>■ 99 3 9 999999998^99eP89a Bef i e fi e B 

BBBeBBBaBBaBBBaBaBaaaaBBaBBBflBBsaBSsaBaBBaeaeaBBeeBBBB«e 

DOononooooMS89BB9a0Ma3ee9BB9B98sea8B88e8BB8Ba 

O'lQOOOD 308 *B899 99 99983 38aB999999989989BB99B9B89 



** i63b*;" 



1636 



16461! 



B9BB9 



...j 1657, 
♦ ♦.♦ 9993 16353*9^333033333199* 999899998899993 ♦.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ Mtlllllll 

aaeaaBBeastBBBsiaaavaiaeBeBpeBsaaaassaataesaeescane 1649m 

♦ ♦♦ .. ■■■■ ll^njieae 88999998888889 

[646 ^645 llllalll ^Jg 303L 

»B9999998Ba55 553538889986998 

♦BBB3e8RB9B0310Q3 300BBB9B9B9 
♦B9339999BB00000300330 88989 
♦■99999999800100 31000010(^86889999999 

♦ B9989998 9i0m0O3100in3iO30a»B9999999 

♦ 8889 99 9B8B0O 3033 00010 31 030(10 8899 999 
♦B9P16S998B01 3003 000300003003 30 88899 

1-HHBijHB" ■•■■■ ■■■■■■^••♦•♦♦•••♦•♦♦♦••♦♦♦♦899W9HB89B103033300a30000r>1001300 Bfl 

B939B3 3 99 3 BBBB B»»» »♦»»*♦»*♦♦****»*♦ *B89998 99BB0330000no0030000000000300 BB 

B99883 BBBSBB 8* ♦♦♦*♦♦♦*";*♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦ B8999998883 3 3 30333003 330100000300000 BBB 

■ amii a***»»**» l| 660,,.»»»» >1 8 3a9 9 9e Q 13D 5 0r ,ooooooiooooooooooooc>3 i 

B3B B*»*».*»»»***f »»*.*»«»B99989999B003nooooninannonninoooooon 

ft.ieF • • BB B*»»*»»f»»»»»»»»**»»**B899899B3arm0oa00 '656^000000001100 

■BB •*♦»♦♦»*»**»♦»♦♦♦♦ »*»B899999989B003001O00O330OnOO0000n3033 

■ ■■♦ *B 1640 ■♦• ♦♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦ ♦♦♦8899989988800300300003000000000000000 

ooooooooooooooooo 



1637 



BaaaaaBBS* 



--■Bar* 



1639 



BBB 



■ ■>■ 



BBB 



9BO30O001000000 

80030000000000 
♦80030033000030 
♦80310030000000 
♦B3O3OD300OO000 
♦80330001001000 



30030003 



3 10 





















.♦•a 

.♦a 


:::;iwS:::::::i* 















FACH LEVEL 



2000 »000 6000 9330 

a ■ a a a 

■■■■■■■8BBOO00000000BBBBBBBB8B00OO0O0OO00 
FEET 

The proparaUon of this map 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 





. . ♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦ 


ooonooooo 


899B89889 


BaaaaBaaa 






nnoooiooo 


B89899899 


•••■••••• 




... ♦♦♦♦?*♦♦♦ 


000333030 




aaaasaaaB 






nooomooo 




iiiitim 




... ♦♦♦♦*•♦.. 


000303000 


8B9999999 




1 I 


15 


* 


s 


5 


1 ..I 




IO330OI 


169*991 


taasaai 


I .. 1 


.1 !♦♦?♦♦! 


1033301 




laasaai 


I ..1 


.1 |..?..[ 


1033301 


189*881 


TBB5BB1 


t .. 1 


.1 l«»2**[ 


1033301 


1 8B*991 


I8B5BBI 


I ..1 


.1 t*»2»*t 




188*881 


I BBSBBI 


1 ■• 1 


.1 !♦♦*♦♦! 








t . . ■ 1 


.1 I»*2*M 








t .. 1 


.1 I**2*M 








I .. 1 


.! \**Z**l 








t -.1 


.1 1**2**1 








I . . 1 


.1 I**2**l 









rvi m p" i <~> 

RESIDENT ADDRESS OF PERSONS 
COMMITTING CRIMES OF VIOLENCE 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE . FLORIDA - 1970 



•sans 
■i ■■■t i 



B333DB3B 
8030O3B0BB 

B0330333B33B 

■330D330B033BB 

BO30030O0B3333B 
•330033000B0303B 
■03D0330003B0033B 

B03303303 330B330oaa 
bo3od300000dbo0303ob 



MESVI-L-E ■ 



oooonooooOB. 



•BQ3O0O303330 333 3 33B. 

HDnnnnonotjpnononDl. 

»B33033 " 



'lesfa:;;:;^"^"!^^^^^;;!^^ 



»ajooc 3O0OnO30300300l> 

•BnooonoooonooooooB.. 
*B3003ooo3oaoo3onoB. . 



■ bbbbbbbbbbm 



03333333 
33333313 
00333333 



■eaec«*BSBsais*iBatasHaiBBB«BiBMiiiBaiiiiaBiasBaBBia*a»tiiiaaaBaBeeBaeeB«BeBB>aaaeBa«aBBiaa 



162** i 



■•'1625 ' 



30f|6SOB3999=<3 3 3e399999 
3 3b. . .■9988999 33 999993 9 
30B..B99 39 9 93 993 998P399 



laag 



B 8 1632, 

B B 

tiBBEiaattatiaaeaBaeaBseBBBBefieBanaeeBaas * * -• *v; 



. aaata^BBSBBaaiaBRnasRaBesaaaaaaRBaas 



, 163** . . .■93993 3 16*4'* 

neeesassssa 

:je»::: SSSSSIiSSaSS 

a 

.1635.. . . B33O00303338 



33 3333333 08 B. 00 00 303333333 B-. B99 3 9 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 ?P3 99 3 93 9 3 

00333333338 8 «e=-3 ••• 3333~ | 3^cp3333B. . B8899 999999 99099998899 303O3303O0 

30330033008 B 'P.??. . ■ . 03 3 3 .'.5vV.J 3 3 3 3B. 83839839899989899999999 3000000000 

00 30 00 3308.. B 03 3 303 3 3 3 3 333BB999993 a £2.% 9 3 99 99 9 993 8 99 30 3100 OO 3 

3033 00 333 IB ■•■■ 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 B9 93 99 3 3 lt>56 18 BB83 93899?gi 3O000OC3 

3D33U033308 a 033003 33 33 33 3e33393a333393B99a33993BB8 OOOOOOOOOO 

a BBaaaa9BRBne^H9BBBBaBRHaB9aai 

BH9Sea^aBa«HRBBBBBiaiB 003 3000 3030 33 30003030 3 33 3BBB999B 

98399 93 9998889883 9BBB 333O0n0000000003 3 3003 3 33BB1B9 39 9 

19 9988 3n3000030333030333D33333BlBB=3J3 

»3 99*9 0O0OaO3Q03-j ^^ QO0O03OJJMBM99aB 



«*19 



33 33 



00000000300000300000000003 
3300000000000300003 003000 3 
333 3 0000300300 30-30 00000001 
3 3 3303303003 0O3qaO" I P3OOOCinOO3On 

30330300 3O0303O! | t> = =300OOJ00300 



0030003030300003 
-nnoooooonoooooooo.i 1 
00030000003033000-1000100033 



U3 3 3 



1 3 3 3 3 1 



3?3 



33303 



39B9 
88B8 

asae 



»*•»•»•» 899998993 98888888888 

»»*•*••* 99909 aeaBBaaaaaaaaaa 
*••»»*•• asaa bbbbbbbbbb 

*bbib .!■•■■■■■■»! 



IBBBBBBB3 3Baa3000000POOOO 

•■■■■■■I3 33 3G8B333303O03000O0O03DO 
IBBaaaBB33 3 33 30aB033DOOOO0OOOn00O0 
1888888803 330330388800300330033000 
IBBBBBBB03303333 330 BB300330000003 
IBBBl«BB3 330000O0n0J0OBBn030 3 333O3 
IBB1B1BB333303 3303333 03OBBB3003OO0 
IBBBB1BB33 3 33 3 3O000O0O000O BB03000 
1 16591 880 33 000000000000033 3 3 BBB03 
IBBBBBBB3 33 0033000O30O0nnO0OO30 BB 
IBBBBBBB30300000000000000000300 30 B' 
1888888803000300 03 300000000000003 

iBaaaaaaooooooooooooo ooooo 33 3 03303 
■aaaBBaaooo30ooon,o""oooooo;)o 



■SB 330 

BBB 3O33300B 

BBB 0303O003OOB 

B 003ODO0O333OOB. 

30303330003008 

3330303033300B 



BBBOOB i6**0* 



3 001 't>=>« O0O003O003O 33 
B0330000000OOOO0000 3 33 0003 
B0330003003300U000030300000 

833 303300000000300030 30 3 303 



a a 8003003 

. .8O3OO3O03000OO03303B0330003333 333BO030O3 
-B00030 300000033 333BB30333003033333B33 3333 
.B OOO00O3OOO03OOB033 33 3O033 3 03 300B0333 30 
B.. 03O33030OO0On*)(»3303OO0OO3 33 3008303000 
B... 000000030008330 3 303 30003 3030008033303 
000880300010300000000 000833 3033 
3 l' = t>lj00O0303300B333333 



300000008000 



BBBBBSBBaaaaaBB 
BBBaasBBBBBaaBaaa 

■88888888 
BBBBBBSBB 

BBBaaaaaa 



3300033033300a... 

» ■ 

3130B. . . 

030OB-. . 

33338. .. 

---■■•-.. 

... .3008... 

IVEM'S .3008... 

ARM .008... 

.008... 

.08... 

.08... 



O3O3 3 3OO0OOOO303O3QB33 30 
03O330300000033333 B 
0000000000033 8 
000000003 ■ 

0000000300 ■ ._, 



REFLECT 

J«* iMC.JOfO 



TOT*. »9S3l. 



THOUSAND 



JES IN CAC-* 



oononn3k.-n.3B 



DDOOOQOOO 



aaaaaBBBBBaaa 



The preparation of this map 
was financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 















8B9B89899 


BBBBBBBBB 










330333030 


999999833 


8B88BB8BB 


.. ..1 




..2**< 




O30333003 


9999*989=1 


■•*■•■>■ 










033333PO3 
030333033 


888899939 
899999899 


aaaaaaaaa 
aaaaaaaaB 




... . 





* 


?0 




• 






Q 


* 


3 


I ..1 


.1 


•*!+•] 






0331OJ 




I ■•-•• i 


t ..1 


.1 


♦♦*♦♦! 






033301 




iBisaai 


I ..1 


.1 


»»2»*1 






333301 


t«B«99l 


tBBSBBt 


l.'il 
t . . 1 
I ..] 

1 ■■! 

t ..1 

till 
t ..1 


.1 
.1 
.1 
.1 
. I 

It 
.1 
. 1 
■ I 


»»2»*1 






033301 
033001 

00330! 
033301 
033301 
O3330I 


1 89*881 





RESIDENT 

COMMI" 



MAP I I 

ADDRESS OF PERSONS 
FING MINOR CRIMES 



BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



• ¥!>lf-*1B9fltlllll*tl«11 1. 



1623 "***** 1622** 



B ■.*...*.♦♦..»..»> •».... ...■ ■ 

■ ■ «.♦•♦♦.♦»♦»». .4g ■ B 

.tie* if ue if •teeiretteeti iiiian en ■■••eeettepeif rt ien eeeeiaiaiianieaivrisrii 



99333333 6T 

99'i^i93 SI 



v=. ri'ifee 



B«BBBtaBBBBB|tBBBBBBBBSBIBaaa68BBai 

:::':::::::::::::::::::::::Hn?i; 

B999B93I 

l^-?<> ; 



BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBeBBBBBBBBBaBaBBBBBBBBBBBB 

a B. ooooooooooooo ■ • 

a. m62B •••• ooonooooonooo ............ .(1650*33993439 



' 1631* 



' 1651' 



.B.B3 



. aeeee 



«HSHHR9HHrl-IHHWMftni|fl 



tBRRRBBRRB 



ooooooonnnooo 

■. ,C J 5 .^ 1330 

. B99B933 383 399B ■■ DODOC 

. B8999399393 3RB t. 333 03330O3303 

B3 9 63433393398 S. 0010000003:133 B9 993833 

B B BB9B99H99989RaRR9SBBBBe9eBH9aBBRH9RH8B 

B«B3BBBBR9BB999HB8R'»BRRPB9a9R999BBIRHRflBR99899RIRRRBHfi999a. »»♦♦».*.»».».*.♦*»••..** »B . B981 993 



993999 
99993 3 



03O003000D0no3" 



T0B-> 



:::::::: ;::;::::::::: ^"i"^;!;:!"^"^*^;^"^ ;•.;; ;;;;;;;:;: 



99e3Sl656i9p^gasn99 99a 3 300000000 

BBBBBBRRBBRBPRBBBaBaf □ 
nD0O">?OTO0^^C?3On3CO- -■ 
O00OO003033OrinOO00O0C1 



653 ** 



►•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ •***•■ 1633 ••• „ tM1Bii-iBa 5 



■ ■■UNI VEOSIT 



B. .B993389 3330 3 30330 300000 310000000000003 000300130 

I. . . B39 3 9 89 33T3n30nDGJ . -'ooiooonooiomon 

. B88 3893 33 33 3000003 3 3 330 0'I655 00000 GOOimm nm 

3 33 ..I. »»*»♦»♦»**♦♦♦». ♦•♦»»»B B933999 33 30330000300000300000000000000000000030 

300 .«■■ *»»♦»*♦»**»*»»♦»♦»*♦♦■---, B9 939 99 30 0000oooo3303 330o:!nonooooo0'ioi [)Q 

■ •■• ♦♦♦*»♦♦♦•*»• ***B. I65 '.B93 3998 3 3 3031 QOOOIOOOfiOOOOOOOOOOnOOOOPnooonOOl rj 
■-..... mm. ,.•*! B983999 303330 OOPOOOOO 3 3 ODPO^OOOOOpOomnn 3 300 33 3 

■ „ . . . laiiiieaeevaef ■•■ut*uiEtiui«ii«iButinii«iuimiiiif »•• iirrmt 

BBBBBBBBIBBBBBBBBBBBBBaSBBBIBBBBBnBaBBSBBBBBB*BBBB | 649BBaaaBBBaBBIBBBBBBB0 33 308B3033033003000r)onoooooc)3300 



1646 ' 1645 



B3330O3000O 

■0303303000 

B33 >6* '30 B 



•330033003 89399 • 
B330033033 BBSB. 

•33303 Baaaaa 

B33BBBI 

II 



99B9999 



♦ B3:I6S930B. 
»833303330B. 
♦B33303330B. 
•B03303300B. 
•B3033333OB. 



000000300000003000 
ooooonoooooooonooo 
■00000000000000303 

.aaaoooooo - 

... BBOO303O3030O0 

••O030003OO3 

BBS03O33O3 

■S30303 

BBB03 

BB 



III 0303B. 

an iDiiiin. 

•BB O003OO33POB 
•■■■ 3O3303O0O33OOB. 



300C 



130 j 



»»»830030 
♦ *«-B00033 

*»BB00030 
•■0000030 



I I64I3300B. . . 
3OOO3300B. .. 
S0000300I 

--3300B. . . 



OOOO0OO0030O0B.. 

3303B.. 

33O0B.. 

33H3B. . 

.... 3300B.. 

...3300B.. 

... .OOOB.. 



VALUES REFLECT RATE 

J.UT= V*LJ= »*Ni? «>JLrlNO to e*c 

CMtxlKJK' [-JC_J0F3 I** MtGMES 



PER THOUSAND 



: .««. 



*SE 0* TOT*. A3S3_ 



2000 4000 6000 8300 

■ ■BBS 

aaaaaaaaBaonooooooooaaaasaaBBaoaooooooooo 



The preparation of this map 
was financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



....a. .aa 

B •..• 

.bi.bb 



EACH _EVEL 







. ♦♦♦♦♦♦ 


». 


0000030O0 


BB9899999 


■■■■■■■■I 














f •■■*•■(■ 




:."!:: 


. »+*«-2* 




O0O030O33 
O000030O0 


P^JUE** 






23 






6 


99R898939 


■•■■■!*•■ 




3 


2 






1 »*2» 




1033001 


1 99*891 


laasaai 






l»*2» 


I 


I03300I 


l«9*89t 


bbsbbi 








I 


1003301 








-.1. . 


!•♦?•■ 


1 


ID030QJ 






s 


..!.. 






I00 300I 








..!.. 


I ♦*Z*- 




1003301 








..1 .. 














:..!.. 














.. i .. 












10 


.. i .. 












12 


.. i . . 












1 3 


..l.. 














..i .. 












1 5 


..!.. 












16 


..1 . . 












1 7 














IB 


..!.. 












1 <* 


.. 1 .. 












20 


..1 .. 












21 


>■!>• 












22 


..1 .. 













MAP 12 

the: percentage: breakdown and origination 
OF calls for police service by police zones 

GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 
1970 



II 

23rd AVE 



I 

lfith AVE 
| a m n h n t 








V 



1 m a p. t ja ,*. f ■* a r R a a a is 
1 ilhh d a^rt ;t» a s^a a a a m.bibii 



4ft* .* u m •} p c 
F-.J>« r% ; Bth AVK.-:i, B f 

b"-v pa fl, e o_i 
• m.a ft tti^riT 



a a a a a 
a a i 



■ •«((«( it i a a a a a a 
<-» a„a frrn it ■ a a a a a i 
2 C L i* "l" a a a a a a 
■a b7b a a a a a a a i 



K a:».<t; ./,,■ bib b-o-b ii a 
"* A ft<i* '-BJ"i a a a * a a a 

1 3 «!«) a ).*){» a a a 



■ 



3 1 «?! ■»- 



a a a 
a 



^5! 



CZI 



LfLJlJI 




7.3% OR LEGS 

7.4 - 11.4 

11.5 - IB.B 

I5.S - I9.G 

19.7 OR BETTER 



tut mrPARjmcs er nitj 
ua» *«j ri\*.\cio ix r*»T 
Titucuix * comphhinsiyi 

TLAN^XC CP-AMI l?3M THt 

OTrAXTXEHT Or KCV3i.N0 

AMO LUM OIVn.fifM£ KT. 



60URCEi GAINESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT 
"BEAT STUDY" - IS70 



MAP 13 

PERCENTAGE OF 

NON-HUSBAND-WIFE TYPE FAMILIES 
CHILDREN LESS THAN 18 YEARS 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



WITH 
OLD 



■■ 

'BOB 
♦ BOOB 

•booobb 

•loonoii 
•boooobob 

♦■oouooiqii 
noouoooiooi 
♦boooooooboob 
.icqqo000ioq0i 



AINESVILLE 
MUNICIPAL 
AIRPORT 



•■MMiimMmmiiMNiMUMaHiiiiiiniiNi 

♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦♦♦♦a** •♦•♦♦♦ •♦♦+BO0O00000O00000000B. . 
»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ •^♦♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦♦•♦BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB.. 
♦»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*•»••■•»♦♦♦»*♦♦♦♦ »«OOOOOOOOOOO0OO0O0«.. 
♦ 1626 ■••♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦■♦♦♦♦•♦♦•♦♦•••OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB. . 



* 100 03 0000 0000 a ooooa. 

♦aooooooooooaoaooooa. 
♦booooooooooooooooob. 

•booooooooooooooooob. 
♦booooooooooooooooob. 
♦booooooooooooooooob. 
♦booooooooooooooooob. 

♦booooooooooooooooob. 

♦ Buooooiiesa 3000000 "* 



BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB 



♦♦B»»»< 

.♦«.♦.. 



aooaoaoooa 



.BBBBasasaBBaaaaBaaBaBBaBaaaaaaBBasaaBaaaaaaaaBaBaBaBBaaaaBBaBBaaBBBBBBiBaBaaaai 



» aoooooooooooooa 
♦boooooooqoooob. 
♦boo00ooo0doob ■ 



OOO000U0 

oooaoooi) 
00000000 



0000 
0000 
0000 



161 



v£. aa: 



. .BOOOOOOOOOOOOBOOOOOGOOOBG 
' UAU ■ ■ BOOOl 16240000800 icociOOBO 

,'6261 ■ aoooooouu000oaoou^7 uu ^ooao 

, ...a.......... >•••>>••■•■•. ..6000000 000000800000000080 

a booooooooooooboooqooooobo 

. .boooooooooooobooooooooobg 

. .boooooooooouobooooooooobo 

' 1632* ■•••••••••■ >>■• . .aooooooooooooaoooooooooao 



•1631* 



I00OO00O00U 



i000C|"g52 1000 



ItHIBHMIUII 

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦BOOOOOB 

...... * ■ lesctaaaaaaaaaaa ■•••■••«« 

.......uiiniiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii 

jiiuiiiiiihuiiiiiiiii e 

aoGaaaaflaaaaaaaaaBaasaaaa aeeaeaeaeeeeeeaeesaeaeaeeBee 
Boaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa BaBaeeBeeaaeaaeBBeeaeBeeBBee 
BaBaaa«a-----BBaBaaaaaaaa eaeeeaeeeeeaae 



! I65 



ooo oooooo do ooua 




sea 

oBeBBBaaaa BBBBeeeeBeaeeaeeaaBeeeeeeBBeeeBeeBeaeeeaaeeaeB 

aeeBBBBBBB eeeBeeeeeBaBBBfteeeeHBBBBeBeeeeaeeBeeeBBaBBHeee 

ooooooooooooooooooooooouaeaaaaaaaa eseaaeeeeeeeeaesdeueeeMSbMeAeeeeeBedeaeueeeeea 
iiess'OoooooaoBaBaBBaaaBB eaaaaaeaa8aae9B89Ba->p^aB9eeaeaaeeaeeeaaaaeaeBa 

oooooooooouuuuuoooaooaaaeeeaBaaaaB ee 988eeeeBe a 8e88ei lt> = , = *a88©e9B8 998B 8899 9688888 

- oooooooooooooooooooaeeaaeeeaiaaa a eaeeeeaeeaeeaeeeeeneeeaeeeaaBaaeBBaa 99 6999999 

B^-"4>BBaaaaa aeBBaaeanseBBBeaeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeee&eeaBeeeeeee 

B lo = 'iB 

ooooi i635)Gooaaaaaeae 

».♦»♦♦♦ oaoooooooooo a east 

BBBBaaaBaaBBaaaaBaBeBBaaBBaaBBBBBaaBaBaBBaL'p^^aaaBBaaaoooooooooaaeaeeaaeaBaeeaaaaaaaaeaaaaaBBaaaaeae 
Baaa aeaaaaaaa ■■■■■■■■•■■■■■« aoauouoaooaaBaaeaeaaBeaBBaBBBBaaBBBBaeeBeeeeeeeee 
7*=iJ: 8 r icVc aaaa oonooooooooaeaaaBaeeaaBaaBBBaaaeaeaaaeeeaeeeeeeae 

i°_? ei. , ?.'T= 99999999 ■■■■ aaonaiiaonuDoooaaaBBeeaseeaeBBBeBBBaaHaBaaaaaaseaeBaBse 
aaaa aaeaee aeeeeeee aaaa ooouocru , £':')OooGaa8B8888888eBeaaBBaaBB88aeee6eeeBeB6eee 
■ eeaeabea aaaa ooonoL l _ c ?= > ' 4 ooooaaeaaeeeeeaeeBaBaaaaBaaaBae8BB89e8a98aa8 

a********** e»e»°eaa aaaa ooooouooootjoaaeaaeaBeaaaeBBaaaaaaaaaaBa BBeeeeeeeaBeae 
a********** e> 1648^8 aaaa ooooooooooaaeBaaBBaBBBaeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeeauaaaaaa 
,637 a* ♦♦"****• 899896 88 aaaa ooooooooaaeeeseeeaBaeeeaeaaaaaBBaaaBBaaBaaaaaaaai 



ooouooooooooooooooob 



aaaeaaaaa aaa 



aaa 0000000000a 
oooooooooooooeooooooooooooi 
00000000000 ooaoooooooooooo 
oooooooooooaueoooooooi' ■« 
oooooc is-^paooeoooooooc,. 



ooooeaaaeeaeaaaaeeaeesBeeBeeaaaaBBeaaaaaaaaaaa aaaeaaa 
iaaaaeeaaeeeeeeeeeeBeei659t8aaaaaBaB8aa8aaaaaaaBB bbbbb 
laaBaaaaeaeeaaeaaeaeeaaeeBaeaaaaeeaBaasaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bb 
•^•BaBaaaaaeeaaaaBBeaaaaaaaaaaBBBaBaaaaaaaBaBBaaaaaaaaaBaaaB aa 
. • •d«Heee»ev l c-£' r , •asaeebeab sb eaeeea«aB««a«« ■•■•■««■ ■••■•••••■ a 
* * B8waaaaeHi l P o yj89e&e8BBee aaa as eiMiiiimii aaaa eea ■■■■!■■■ 
*»aaeaeeeeeaaaeeeeeeaeeaeaaeeBaa8BBBBBBBBBR"*"BaBaa8asaBBas 

•taaaaaBaaaaBaBeaeaaeeaaeaaeeaBBBaaaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaaa 
•Besa8BaB8aBaB9aa899 bb bbbbb aaa eeBBBBBaBBBBBBaBaBBsaflBflaaaaaa 
*BeaaeeB68aeaMe8BBeee8Ba88BB8eeBBBBBBaaBflBaaaBaa8aaaB8Baaaaa 
aBBBBaeBBeaaeBeBBBeBaaBaaaeaBaaeBaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 



Of) J 0888888888888886888686888688 8 88 88 aaa 

0008686686866 8668886 Baaa6a98888BBe8B88B 

WIOOODOI 8668886886868888888866888869 aaa 88 

.-.jnoooa. . eeeaeeeeeaaaeaaBeaeaaBBBBBBdaBaes 



BaaaaBBBBBa 

888888888*888 

Baaasaaasaaaaaa 
aaaaaa a aBBBBBaaaa 

aaaaaaaBB 



OOOOO'iuuuJOOOBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB. . . 8eB88e88H98aHBH8999998e8899888aBBBaBB8BBaS( 

ooooqoooooooob ooooooooooooob. . . 8B98e8Ba88et»8a8o*i'" 1 9e888eeaeaaaBBBBaaaeBB 

OOOOO000U00OOB. . . . OOOOOQOOB. . . . 886888888886888' " it * '986888868 888a 8888*8 III 

00000000000008 B 89M998B9H999899H99968899 89898aiBBBBBB«BB 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOB. .............. .8..... 88688868688666688 988888 868888888 8818888 

ooooa .a. ....... aaa aeeeeeeaaaaaeeeasaB a 

ooooa a a esaeeeeaaeede a 

ooooa a a eeaeaeeae a absolute v 

.... ooooa a a BrtaaBBeaae a 1-H 

...ooooa a a a 

... .oooa a a a 

eivEN* s .oooa a a a minimum 

ARM .OOB B B a MAXIMUM 

.008 ,e4~3 " 



*S8 


aoo 


1250 


3O00 


•aoo 


&C0 


1150 


3O00 


AOOO 


A%69 



-OB. 



ACE OF TOTA 



NGE APPLY IN 



TO EACH LEVEL 



■•••■••■• 

2000 4000 

8 B 

aasoooaooooooaaaaaa 

FK€T 



DISTRIBUTION OF OATA PO 1 1 



bbooooooqooqo 



aaaaaBaaBB aa 



The preparation of this map 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



OOOOOOOOO 696688688 888888888 



000030000 6889*8889 888858888 
OOOOOOOOO 989999999 aBBBBBBBB 
ooooooooo eaaeeaeea 



II 

00300 
0Q3O0 
O03OO 
OOJOO 
00 300 
00300 
00300 

...i I'll..' 
00 3OO 
00 300 



SOURCE — BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 



188*66 1 
168*881 

189*691 
1884861 



1. The rate or unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence and minor crimes per 
district and: 

a. the average housing score per district (-); 

b. the percentage of substandard housing units per district (+) . As the rate of 
unlawful behavior increased, the average housing score decreased, and the 
percentage of substandard housing units increased per district. In other words, 
there existed a strong positive correlation between crime and poor housing quality. 

2. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence and the percentage of 
Black occupied units per district (+) . 

3. The percentage of families per district with children who are less than 18 years old 
that are not husband-wife type families and the ratio between the average Black rent 
to the average total rent per district. This ratio increased as the percentage of fami- 
lies increased. 

Some relationship was uncovered between the following: 

1. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence per district and: 

a. the percentage of housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room. The rate of 
unlawful behavior increased as the percentage of overcrowded units per district 
increased; 

b . the ratio between average Black housing value to the average total housing value 
per district; as this ratio increased, so did the rate of unlawful behavior relative 
to crimes of violence. 

2. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to crimes against property and: 

a. the percentage of substandard units per district. As the percentage of overcrowded 
units increased, so did the rate of unlawful behavior; 

58 



b. the average housing score per district. The average housing score decreased 
as the rate of unlawful behavior increased per district. 

3. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to minor crimes and the percentage of Black 
occupied units per district. As this percentage increased, so did the rate of un- 
lawful behavior. 

4. The percentage of families per district with children who are less than 18 years old 
that are not husband-wife type families and: 

a. the average monthly rent per district. As the percentage of families increased, 
the average monthly rent per district decreased. 

b. the percentage of housing units per district with 1.01 or more persons per room. 
This percentage increases as the percentage of families increases per district. 

c. the percentage of Black occupied housing units per district. As the percentage 
of Black occupied housing units increased per district, so did the percentage of 
families with children who are less than 18 years old that are not husband-wife 
type families . 

A weak relationship was found to exist between: 

1. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence, property crimes, and 
minor crimes and the ratio between average Black rent and the average total rent 
per district (+) . 

2. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence and minor crimes and 
the relative housing value per district (-) . 

3. The rate of unlawful behavior relative to property crimes and the percentage of 
Black occupied units per district (+) . 



59 



4. The percentage of families per district with children who are less than 18 years old 
that are not husband-wife type families and: 

a. the percentage of substandard housing units per district (+) ; 

b. the relative housing value per district (-); 

c. the percentage of vacant units per district (+) ; 

d. the ratio between average Black housing value to the average total housing value 
per district (+) ; 

e. the average value of owner-occupied housing units per district (+) . 

The following table (3) points out those relationships between those variables that delineate other 
than housing quality. 



60 



Table 3 
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL DEVIATION. 

FAMILY DISORGANIZATION. AND OTHER SOCIAL VARIABLES 



S * 5 

p c o 

CO 3 c 

2 « 

g c c 

k- i n. 

CJ 'j -^ 

~ u "a 



C <" 

o -a 

IT. c 

a) a 

c u 
x> — 



CJ X) 

u "~~ 

cj xj 

w £> 

C ra 

5 "> 

g =3 

° 2 

ra -a 



■C <U 

2 c 

— CJ 

•° .2 

— i > 



J2 U! 



.-o 



I/) 



SI 

O c 

J3 .5 

- o 

> >. 

ra t! 

3 O 

>~ "» 

o Q- 

o 



x: x> 
to ^ 

X3 Wl 



c a: 



'5 5 23 



6 



— — CO 



*- CO -C w 



?„ * ° * 

CO i 

c £ « 5 

8 2 

S 2 CO 

a, u « x: xi 



.■° £ 



•2 c 
•a o 



> I .a 

< O X) 



to cj 



0) — 



CD 


R 


TJ 


a 


ra 




^ 


V) 


r.r 


a 




01 


CJ 


£ 


Ml 


CJ 


.-3 


M 


U 


U. 


0J 


E 



nn 


a 


r 


ki 




i) 


T1 


u 


co 


i/i 



0) 


G 


■O 





ra 




v-. 


71 


BO 


C 




o 


CJ 


£ 


CO, 


UJ 



< U X> 



xi xi 



X) o 



>- a „ 



< o £ 






£ <u 



E 



o £ 

CO .- 

cnx) 



2 x) 



CO q) 
re q. 



x: .^ 
" xi 



■a a 



H 3 



w XI 
O <U 



<_> 0> V* 



ate of unlawful behavior 
e: crimes of violence/ 
■ istrict 



SV 



hate of unlawful behavior 
e: property crimes/dis- 

ict 



SV 



ate of unlawful behavior 
e: ninor crimes/district 



SV 



kreentage of families with 
riildrcn who are less than 
p years old that are not 
lusband-wife type families/ 
■Strict 



SV 



MV = Same variable 

= High degree of association 

= Some association 

= Weak association 

lank spaces indicate that little or no relationship exists 

= Positive relationship 

= Inverse relationship 



61 



Possible Areas of Investigations : 

1. Juvenile Arrests, 

2. Prostitution, 

3. Victim Statistics (Age, Sex, Race, Income), 

4. Offender Statistics (Age, Sex, Race, Income), 

5. Location of Crimes (In determining safety of certain urban areas), 

6. Child Molesting, Beating, Etc., 

7. Percent of Persons Expressing Fear of Neighborhood Crime. 



62 



FOOTNOTES 

34 Deviant behavior is generally defined by politically dominant or superordinate groups 
who generally determine whether some actions should be positively valued or negatively valued. 

35 Lindesmith, p. 658. 

36 Ibid,, p. 652. 

37 Ibid. , p. 656. 

3 8"Uniform Crime Reports," U. S. Department of Justice (Washington, 1970), p. 5. Crimes 
of violence are herein defined as offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated as- 
sault; property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny ($50 and over) and auto theft; these are 
the major crimes and are considered to be the most consistently reported to the police. 

39 "'Beat Study' from January 1, 1970, through December 31, 1970," Planning and Research, 
City of Gainesville Police Department, pp. 4-5. 

4 ^As previously stated, family disorganization is assumed to occur when divorce, separation, 
desertion, or death of one or both parents (guardians) occurs. 



63 



Chapter 7 



HEALTH 41 



In its 1969 publication, Toward a Social Report (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government 
Printing Office), the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare stated that 
one of the basic means for determining quality of life was the consideration of health. How- 
ever, in order to properly look at health problem areas, the concept of health must first be 
defined. Philip Lee points out the following difficulties incurred while defining health: 

"Health is both a generalized and a relative concept which has been defined in a variety 
of ways. To some it has meant merely freedom from physical disease. In recent years the con- 
cept has been broadened to include social well-being." 

Traditional analyses of "health" have merely involved the tabulation of kinds and amounts 
of diseases (or the absence of health) for various geographic areas. The examination of the types, 
amounts, and locations of health problems is extremely important in analyzing various peoples' 
ways of life. The way they live, for example, often reflects the status of their own social well- 
being. 

One study, for instance, revealed that "poor health — whether real or imagined — might 
so inhibit the individual's activities as to prevent the acquisition of further education and contrib- 
ute to lower family income." 

This section will examine the following 1970 health problem indicators 44 (see Maps 14, 15, 
and 16): 

14. Total count of reported tuberculosis cases by enumeration district, 5 

Infant mortality rates by enumeration district; *° (No map available) 



47 

15. Death rates by enumeration district; and 



64 






16. Rates of venereal disease by enumeration district. 48 

Results of Correlations 

In regard to housing quality and health problems, one study has shown that "when housing 
conditions are highly inadequate, the physical environment itself can have a deleterious effect upon 
health, and that when a group that formerly lived in such conditions moves to better housing, its 
illness rates will diminish." 49 

In this particular study, rate of infant mortality per district, rate of tuberculosis per district, 
and the average age at death per district were investigated. Because of an insufficient number of 
cases, at least somewhat unreliable correlations were uncovered. 

When death rates per enumeration district were analyzed, however, results were achieved 
that pointed out, at the very best, the following mostly very weak relationships. As death rates 
per district increased, it was uncovered, the percentage of female-headed families increased; the 
percentage of substandard units increased; the ratio of the average Black housing value to the 
average total housing value increased; and the percentage of Black occupied units per district 
increased. 

A bit stronger relationship was discovered between death rates per district and the rate 
of unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence. As death rates increased, so did the rate 
of unlawful behavior relative to crimes of violence. 

A fairly strong relationship was detected, however, between the death rates per district 
and the rate of unlawful behavior relative to minor crimes per district. As death rates increased, 
so did the rate of unlawful behavior relative to minor crimes. 

Possible Areas of Future Investigations : 

1. Definition of health, good health; 



65 



MAP 14 

COUNT OF REPORTED 
TUBERCULOSIS CASES 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE . FLORIDA - I9TO 



BBBHBBBHHHMHHHIIHHHHBBBnBBBB 



. .fl.ii 

. .. .a. .a 

. .. .a. . .»■ 



iiitmtii 



(!Peeftf>iiiicie««ef>ac«snBffiB9iii«nBBei<ei«eBBBBBtiBftBfieeBBeeseBBBBeBBBiii)iBaasBaaBitBBeeeeBBBBBiBBB«HBBBaB«BBBB 



9*ee«fi|>BBBBBBCaBBBBB6BnB«Bi 



AVF. mm*««nm«"»lB(m WfPSBfiarPfHinif'rBBeBBBBBBBPBeBeBaBBBBeBeBBaBBBBaBBeflBBBBBflflBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 

b a a a a 

■ 1624- ■ I62S ■ M6SOB*** 



HRBBRRHR 



■•IIIUNIVE V51T 



B « HHHRRRH 

lHHHnflHHB»RHHRHRSHHHflH*HHHBaHUOHT< 

ciiiiiiiiiitiaiiiiii **a* 

1634 fillflll l644 itfllMIII ..*. 



B *• 

a a* 

B I" 

B • ♦■ 



■ I6S7;„»,» 



B«eB*tiBi>«9'Pa<i'f<PEft«BiiaeasfisBBBBBB«BBBBBBa*BBBa*iBaBBB , 6 4 9fcaaaaca 
a ♦ ♦♦ »*♦♦»♦♦♦>»♦ 

„„.,,.,„ „_ ,,.,.,. 1646 1645 tilt 



reaaaaaaaaei 



; J638 , A<c 



iBBSBeaBB6caBaaaaaaaaeaBBaBBBaaaBasaaBaaaBaBeeeBBB*a*aB9BBBBBB6Ba«a6aBBBaa 



6000 tOOD 

a b 



. . . . a aa 

a a * 

.aa aa 



BBBBaaeasn mm 



The preparation of this map 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



B,STR 


RUTITJ 3F OftTA 
2 


OOINT V4LJES IN E*C 
3 * 


* LEVEL 

5 




..I !»♦?♦♦! 
..] I»»2*#T 
..I 1**2**1 
.. t 
.. 1 

'.. 1 


oonnooon es9B9eeR9 
poynooooo BRBRHnase 

n.-»OT3TMUO R9»E»oeR9 


eaaaaaaaa 

••■■■•*• 

asaeaaBBB 
■iiiiiiii 


1 t .. 

2 I .. 

3 I . . 
* t . . 

5 I . . 

6 I . . 

7 I .. 





taasaai 



snjracF — *L»CM 



MAP 15 

RATES OF DEATH 

BV ENUMERATION DISTRICT 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



oooe»a 
ooob»*« 
ooob***bb 
iiih1hi ii 

oooe»»»»a*B 
ooob**»**b*bi 
oooooo ooooo oooooo oooooo oob**»***b* 

000O000O0OO0OOOO0O000O0OOB*******B 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB»»»»*»»B 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooa** • ♦♦••♦i 

00000000000000000 OOOOOO 0OB>* *•**•• 

OO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO OOOOfi* ******* 

_:**»••**♦* 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooe******** 



e >6ie »m 



a mm c.inesville 

a ■ MUHIC [ = »L 

a a a* airport 



a •■ mrnrn 



39Th AVE. 



626, 



a a 
a a 
a a 



•aaaeeaai 

- tz2r ~ :-r-zT t 
f j- . : ■ « 

- mbp oo ooc soooooa 
■ax iooooooooob)* • 

B 7 - ■ . -■.--.- e . . 

B7 ■ " v *• • 

ooocooccora oooooo 00 oooo ooHoooooooocoona** 

,,.-.-,.-,-■,- -... . f -. - - - lf . , 

f - . 

oooooooooooooooooooBooooooooooooa** 
•p- m 100000000000a roaoaooooooooooB)** 

■ * r . ■ b - 



• •••••OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB**^ 

*»*♦* bod. a-> oooo oooooo c-o oooooo** 

• •♦-♦BOaoaoooooooooooooooooa** 
*»-»**booooooooooooooooooooob** 
♦*♦ ♦ ♦ BOO oo oo oooooooooooooooa** 

• *»»*BOQooooo a** 



♦•oooaooooooooooofa»oa» ,t> j*.' 3 ooooB»**»* ,e '=' e: ** *****bc 



■OOOOOO 7 

■ooaoaoc 

" " -~ 5 ' I 7 



•B OO OOOCOOOOOC MMBDO -_■:■■ ::■:- ■•• 
♦ •■ooooooa oooooo boh oooooocsoob** 

• • • BC ooa OO 0OO0 OOBf 

••♦BoooooooooaooaooorooooooooB** 

• •••aaaoOOCXKJOOOaOQCOOOOOQOOOO** 



• i::ojfj; 

•-•aoooaaoc 

*e->c:>po oca or 



•-♦ejoaooaoflDooc 



• tnaDOo.inccG 



• » e ; - ■ - c : r- 1 - 7r 

• -ic: oooaoaa 
. ■ooooooaaooa 

• JDDDOOOOOOO 



DO .-G7GC 

OOODODOa 
90000000 



•■••■■■■•I ti 



OOOOOOOOOOG 00000000000000)0000 

: ( OO aa ~. z c MM MXKKMOaOOtSQQC 
000 tOOOOOOO JOOOOOOOQCr "L ^ 1 - 

DODoooaoooc jooooooooo ooobjo 

•■■' 652 i'-- OOOO 6E ; 7: : ro 

soooooooooo Dooooooooooooaai 

a ooooooooa 7 dooob ;:-:~o;"t— 



cc"or>o k >c :■' "-jc : ".:■:": nirt^ 

■. ■ -pri-xoeaaaaee 



uwu> _ . 

oo m ISSrbooo 



aOONI*P0S|TY AVt. 



■ .:<••• llllttltBIIIII 

a ooooooaaa iiiminMiii 

aaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaeaBBeaaataai6**9aaa 



Bf H-tP 



a*** oooooo 



i63o;;J 



rcococo aaaa Mfle»M8«8 

.ioccoco aaaa eeaeei654 

looccoco aaaa eweefw-i 

649CO aaaa eeeeeeeeeei 



16*7.. OO00OC0C 
OOOOCOOC 

aoooo • f 



•CD aaaa oooooooo a 



--"-(flllHIMIIi: 

■»---* -r»ai««aaaa**eaaooooooooooooooooooooo 
e*>*ar' i «BBBaBBaaa*»***aa<"noDooc?7ioccccc>7Co.; 
-«-b :»«•■■■ ■■••**•***• BBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
f-t. .. (iiiniiiix..,.. . .fff r . . 

aacc o "aeaeeaaeaa*** •*.♦♦»♦♦ aacoooocoooooo 

■ : :; ftiannti- .* . .* ■* - -,-. 

> :i*"f3: 7aaaaBaaaee****«***»»***»**aaaiooooooc 



a oo e oooo oea^eae eg 
eoae ooooooooooo e o 

j^iiiiijiaa^a^a 9000004110110000004101X100000000 

" ccocooccooooocoooooooooooooo 

: 

■ 
aoooooaoee e o cc cooc cooo ooocooo 



7" 7 



DOO OOOOOOO 



^COOOOOOOOOOOC 
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOODO 

■OOOOOO 7: IO00 E DO 

BOG ■ DOOOO '660: 
. . ■OOOODOOOOOOOOOi 
. . BOCDOOOOOOCOOOOOO 

..Boooooooooooooooooosoeaiii 

. bccog ooc oocoo ca 000007 7 BBieBBieaeB* 

.»-T 7C37i- r>;^T7C 7 ■ietll •■•••■•( • 



•■•••••it 



:«iv:::::::i : 



VALUES 


REPLECT 


BSOLUTE V«LUE a 
(.*.»»! HUB 


NGE APPLY 1 NC 
INCLUOEO IN 


MINIMUM 765 
nas|mlM« 26CT 


00 2607.13 
13 A730.62 



RATE PER THOUSAND 

TO EACH LEVEL 
HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY) 

4730.62 9509. *9 11631.97 



•■■■■■■•• 

aaa aaaeaa 
••••••■•• 



••■•..*..•■ 
*•■••••* *a 
•••••• •■■ 



l OEHCENTACE Of T0T*L ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL 
I 

10.78 I2.*2 27.95 12. *2 36. *2 



2000 *000 6000 eooo 

a « a a a 

aa a aaa aaaao cooo oooo oaaaaaBBBB bo oooo oooooo 



VALUES IN EACH LEVEL 



eaaaaaaaaa 



oooooo ooo aa 

C0CGDO77C ao- 

1300030000 flo 
DOOC DOC 90 « 
OOOOOO XM ** 



■■••■•••I 



The preparation of this map 
was financed in part through 
■ comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



17 7 7 7 7! 
100 3001 
: ?o ? 7 a i 

i on 3oo i 

IOC 30 2 I 
IO0300I 

I CO?") CI 



I aataei 

I aiiiaoi 



leasaat 

laasaai 
laasaat 



SOURCE — COUNTY h£H.Tm DEPT 



RATES OF 



MAP 16 

VENEREAL 



DISEASE 



BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



aBBvaBBaaaaaaaaBMaBBaBaeaaeaBameaa 3 a 



0ipe*VFBSBW*s*PaBeBe**B3*«*tas«averff**FrvpBaeffFFGPFF6iPBsraee*aB'aiiaacBaBeeBBBeBenBVBB! 



■•■■MPttMittfiifiiiiiinrf 



.iaai«Baa«aaaf«aaearBav««Baa*a«apaaaaaa«B»asaaaaaaaaeaBBBeae8Bi 



BftrBrBBPBBBB*i>a«a«Ba»>i'M>Bprrii>p»Bi<ii*<Bf<i'ParBf)B»Kf>pBaBf>«eBeBBi 



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::s:::]mt::::ss»i»ss 

a * • ............. a.......... *»». 



■.."......■saa . 

e 

MHHRRRHHBRRHHRBRBHBnflHRHBHBPHflflRflRB S * - * V ' 



HHRHRMnWHMHHflHflH"HhHHHBRHHFIMRBHHBBIH 
II 

163,4 aa 
■■•■■••■ aa 

■•■•■•■• '633 -—---—-—JS 



M«M 



mm 1635^^1.,,,. 

Ei aBa**aaaaaa««aa>aaa»aaaBF'BB«aa«eacaf'aeB«eBearari>«Fai64 9 esaBBaB oo~^33 

16.46 *I64S lltltlll Z*\u noli 
• •»•»*» aaaaaaaa aegi 
1636 •■ 



_0>io» 



BeSBBBBBBBei 



n» oooo5'"6S4^^i 



I64B ■• 



'BUR 



1637 



■«.« 1647., 



11M* 



eeaaaaaai 



• .899: 



sanaaer 

6SO»999i 



8aaeaBBBaaaaseacaaeB*f>eBBMaa»Bee*BBa8BEGBB« 



; .teas L4 < 



S£im^^1m22Si 



enBRRieH 



• • > I'lll •■•■•■ 



A000 sooc 

a ■ 



JO 300000100000000000 000 

inoann^" ^.oanoooooooooi 
nijTnoi' 656 ooiioaooooaooo 
ooooooaoonoooooooaaooon 

oaonooooooaooooaooooooaao 

ojoooooooooaoooooooooooaa 

onnoooooooon 

oaonoooooooo 

O100000O0O00 
73 3000000000 
onooonooonoo 
000000000000 

laoonooooooo 

300000000 
330000000 



VALUES REFLECT RATE PER THOL 

T.UT- VALJF 1*Nr.f t"L*ING TCI E»fl L r «f L 

'"""lu')' ifCL)\-" is MiCHisr l'vel ns-i.v) 



fPOC-NTl'.f DP IDTA. *P«i3LUT = 
3.S*. 20.* 

CJFOJE^C* [>l>"|Rur|"M 3F 0» 



aaaavaaaaaaB* 



aaaaaaBBBB aa 



■ 



■■■*■■■ 

■■■sail 

■■■■■■a 



The preparation of this map 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



1 1 .. 1 ..1 14*2**1 


rosnoi 


? 1 . .1 . . 1 1**2**1 




3 [ . . 1 .. I 1 **2**t 


D331P1 


• 1 .. 1. . I 1 **2**I 


00 ion 1 


* I ..1 .. 1 !*•?**■ 


031 101 


* 1 «*2**I 









SOUPCF — *L*CHU« CO J 



Hr.L'M IF' 



2. A health index which can include measures of: 

a. Sight, 

b. Hearing, 

c. Digestion/nutritional status and levels, 

d. Dexterity, 

e. Sleeping patterns, 

f. Physical endurance capacities, 

g. Accessibility to and use of services of doctors and dentists, 
h. Larger breakdowns as to type/rates of morbidity - mortality 

information, 

i. Life expectancy rates, 

j . Dental problems, 

k. Use of prescription/non-prescription drugs, 

1. Chronic disease, 

m. Disabling diseases, and 

n. Individual perception of physical health status. 



69 



3. A mental health index which can include measures of: 

a. Emotional adjustment and balance, 

b. Adaptability, 

c. Interpersonal competence, 

d. Individual perception of mental health status, 

e. Job satisfaction, 

f . Rates of alcoholism , 

g. Suicide rates , 

h. Psychogenic illnesses (asthma, ulcers, etc.), and 

i. Stress indicators (such as insomnia, ulcers, etc.) 



70 



FOOTNOTES 

41 Arline Haufler, "Mental Health May Depend on Economic Situation," Gainesville Sun , 
September 17, 1972, p. 9-B. For counties such as Alachua, "mental illness is associated 
with low incomes and deprivation while health is associated with relative affluence and oppor- 
tunity ..." 

42 Philip R. Lee, "Health and Weil-Being," The Annals of the A APS , Social Goals and Indi- 
cators for American Society (September, 1967) , II, 194. 

43 Leo Schnore and James D. Cowhig, "Some Correlates of Reported Health in Metropolitan 
Centers," Social Problems (1959-60), Table 3, p. 225. 

44 These are required by law to be reported to the County Health Department. 

45 T. B. cases, it should be noted, are a relatively accurate measure and are often closely 
related to overcrowding conditions. It should also be noted that health centers generally may not 
have either inactive T. B. cases or cases of T. B. infection without disease reported. 

46 N. Hicks, "Economy May Spur Mortality," Gainesville Sun , November 20, 1972, p. 4-C. 
Relative to information on mortality, it should be emphasized that generally the place of residence 
given is merely the mailing address (which can be another city, town, or country in which a 
person is born or has died) ; "... many experts have equated infant mortality ... to be an indi- 
cator of the general health of the nation..." M. V. Jones and M. J. Flax The Quality of Life in 
Metropolitan Washington , D. C. : Some Statistical Benchmarks (Washington, D. C. , 1970). In- 
fant mortality used as the only health indicator in Quality of Life Study in Washington, D. C. 

The information given on death certificates relative to causes of death is often unreliable 
as many decisions are often subjective. As an example, a man may be listed as dying from a 
heart attack when in actuality it may be lung cancer that spurred the heart attack. 

4 °This variable was not placed in the analysis in that it often tends to provide very biased 
results . 



71 



49Wilner and others, The Housing Environment and Family Life (Baltimore, 1962) , as printed 
in Robert Gutman, ed. People and Buildings (New York, 1972), pp. 189-201. The study revealed 
the following: 

a. for those persons aged 35 years or less, as housing quality improved, there were 
less serious occurrences of illness as well as a lesser number of days of disability 
(serious illnesses were those that required medical attention and/or one or more 
days of disability) . 

b. for those persons aged 20 years or less, accidents tended to decrease and lower rates 
of illness (relative to infective and parasitic conditions, digestion, and accidents) oc- 
curred as housing quality improved. 

c. for those persons aged 20-34 years of age, there occurred only slightly lower rates 
in the chronic diseases which include circulatory systems, allergic, endocrine, met- 
abolic and mental disorder conditions when housing quality improved. 






72 



Chapter 8 
EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT 



Education is perhaps the most significant indicator concerning the competitive aspects of 
the quality of life. 50 

"Education is now the most important agency whereby a young man with ability but lim- 
ited resources can rise from the class of his parents." 51 

Several studies point up the importance of the educational factor. As our society and 
culture grows more complex and sophisticated, changes occur with greater rapidity. Individuals 
require greater amounts of time to learn and adjust to the changes. In an advanced, technical, 
urban society, a man requires more than just the ability to adjust to rapid changes. He must 
also know "how" to adjust to these rapid changes. Both general and specialized formal education 
attempt to provide persons with the proper learning tools necessary for adequate adjustment into 
the social milieu. 

In a survey conducted from April 21 through April 23, 1972, by George H. Gallup 52 in 
which parents were asked their opinions on the chief reasons for educating their children, the 
responses (and corresponding percentage of persons replying) were: 



1. To get better jobs 44% 

2. To get along better with people at all social levels 43% 

3. To make more money - achieve financial success 38% 

4. To attain self-satisfaction 21% 

5. To stimulate their minds 15% 

6. Miscellaneous reasons 11% 



53 



o 



73 



When those same parents were asked what they would like their local elementary schools 
(grades 1-6) to emphasize, the predominate response was: 

"Teaching students the skills of reading, writing and arithmetic." 54 

In this section we will consider the following educational achievement indicators (see Maps 
17, 18. 19, 20, and 21). 

17. The average 1970 reading comprehension test score for Alachua County School pupils 
for grade 4 by enumeration district 

18. The average 1970 reading comprehension test score for Alachua County School pupils 
for grade 6 by enumeration district 

19. The average 1970 reading comprehension test score for Alachua County School pupils 
for grade 8 by enumeration district 

20. The average reading comprehension test score for 4th, 6th, and 8th grade Alachua 
County pupils by enumeration district , and 

21. The average 1970 Florida Senior Placement test score for Alachua County Public School 
12th graders by enumeration district 

Improvement in housing conditions, it should be noted, promotes an environment that is 
conducive to less severe illness (both in number and in kind) . Less illness and less severe 
illness improves the possibilities of more and better school attendance. With more and better 
school attendance comes an increased likelihood for educational achievement. 

Results of Correlations 

As one study 55 pointed out, as housing quality improved, so did school performance. 
This particular analysis revealed corresponding results. For example, there was shown to 



74 



MAP 17 

AVERAGE 
COMPREHENSION 



READING 
TEST SCORES 



4-TH GRADE PUPILS 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



33a9-»389saee9ee.ie&^s9 



996191 

aaeeaaB 
aettmeaamm 

eaeaaaaaaa 

8e*t*i-988BaB 

boobs sbbobb 



9eea^ ; "*989999a6eja;ie~3898a9?89 99>'=-- 3; iB«e^e=i 
•Bafl**BeB**a****a**B**ea****e*BBBeBe6aeeBeae*BBBeaeeeBaesea 

B6B83BBBBB39afl9B388BB33BBB3O0O90O000O0BBBBBB 

99»9999a8i; (62 g7999969939eB3330:]3.;: 



a a 
a a 
a a 



■i*H 



9998989^38993 9:883 3 3 30330 



003003 aa 

9898' 



J03: 



8B3Beee998899*9a:>:>-> 100900000000 399899?-? 

-aa.99e98»"*« 999998003303000333 303 88399999 
999889968969 8388033 33 3 30000000 86888999* 
8888888889993ae83J33 37 3-)O0300O 999999898 

a eooooooooooooo aaaaaaaaa 

8 000000000030080003033000000 99899998 

- "' ■ -O^'.'j 3 30 1 I 7S "X" >O0 - WOO 3389999B 

8 000OO000^13- , L < 5l=-33335J:33 983899*98 

i9 oooooooooooonaooooooooooo aeeseaaa 

.«EMh3R9S 3OOOOOOOOOOOJB0333O3O3C0 99998998 
988*8899939 3000303 3308 99 99998 

9889989999998 0O0OO30 9 3c" B89 9 * 99 9 =1 9 li 6 , ft 998 
8898988889983 0000000 9ae899a : »939S3h, 0: . c .9a 
■ 8999899998 



ooonnnpoo^ooooooonooB 

O0OO00000 

1.-1*1033 L) HIM C0OO00003 

<=.T. OOOOOOOOi 

IOO000O OOOnooOOn 



a 

a - ! i -,-. 'ciiOTurnoTccojor '■ e t > 

t ,1 

" .1 )O03OOOOOOOO0OO30On03i)1.H , K ■- r 

ooooiooo 000*00000 

i 

8'>mn-)JD03J30n-i K30QOI DO ' -a MM io 
i ooooqnnooBooooo 



a 

•■ 

i B-9-r 



9n^fti9a999aaaa9&aBa9 
aaaaaaaa*- - 
aaaaaaaa aaaa^gaaaa 



IOO030 



993989988 

399aaaa 
8898 



BBoeeBBBBBaae 



(STH COCO «*!N 000 

ST. OO00 ST. OOO 

OOO 

Baaaaeaaaaajaaeaaa 



0OOO0OO3 



3 ST. 3003i3 

33 OOOOOOOB 

□ 30000000030. 108 



HHHRr,HM»8a«8l)HBHI 



0OO*0 OOOC133-303-133 13 
0008D 00 ' 

BaaasaBBeaasaeBsaaB 



o*. tllllililllllllllliitil ■«■«■■•■«■ 

inillll'tllUIIIMIIIUI (llflMIII 

illlllll656< Ilillll •■••■■•■■■ 

'■■■■■•■■■•■■■•■ ■■■•■■■■( ■■■■■■■■a* 



0030300330013^100 

■■UH tVCOSITV *«■. - BBB 
00 

■ ■ 



looc iigs^iiiiiiii BaBaflaaaaBBB 
aBflBBBBBBBBBBeBaaaBBBaBBflaBaaaaaBBBaaaBB 



1646 1645 



BB)B BB 9 OBOOO 

^-99^,9 .98888' 

aaaaaaa i6*49 saaaaaai 

e»a»888aaa9^99s 99n838E<39d9e8B8BBaaaa8aaBaBBa 
89*8 eaat*H-»«^ t '-Ti •»•■■■■ ■■*»■■■*■■ 



IIIIIKIII 

aajaaaBBaaa 

B*eieecaBe 



•••■■■IB 

BBBBBBBB 

•■aesBaasf taeeeppev 



■8 88*9 9e9-9---9-,--9--.iBtBtBlB8 

a*aaa**a eeae 9eeeen6S49939BaBBeaaBBe 

■•**■■■■ 89*8 988^98999983 B*********a* 

*i648** «*•* aeeeeeeeaaaaaasaaaaaaaBa 



■(•■•••■•■■■■••••• 



■■■■■*■■■ 



•■■■■■■■III! 



■a*** ititdiiitimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 

BBBB •■■•■■■••■■■■■■■■•■••■■•■■ 

■ ■■a* laim imitiiiMii 



■aaaaaa 

mil aa 

b****** aa 



i ii 



• ■•■■tllMIIIIIMIMIIIIIIIII-KIIIIIII 



BBB 
BBBBB 

aaaaasB ■ 

aaaaBBBBS 

■••■■•■•••• 

■■■iiiiiiiiii 

■■•■■■•■■■■■in 

•■•■•■•■■■■■■•■■a 

■■•■■■■•■ 

aaaBBaaaa 

BBBBBBBBB 
■■•■■■■■I 



1& *3 



TOT*. *?>3.JTE 



^VINS TO =*CM LEVEL 
20. 75 13.21 



SOJENC* OIST^IQJT 10 



2000 400C 

■ ■ 
• •• '"..-I I ■■■ 

FEET 



■00000000000 



T5J333C0J "«?^r 

... l SBe 

3?r>331-33 89a9»993 
OOOOOOnOO 88998088. 
POOOOnoCO 89999939' 



The preparation of this map 
wu financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



103 3301 


iee 


BB1 


I 00 3301 


tee 


*o- 




199 


9s' 


■ 


198 


BOI 


1033301 




991 






BB1 


1003001 


189 


BBI 


1033301 


tea 


991 


IOO30OI 






1 QQ 30O1 






IOD330I 






1033301 







: iiti 
i» ■« 

ti ■• 



school eo» 



MAP 18 

AVERAGE READING 
COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES 

6TH GRADE PUPILS 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



BHflBf>*eeBBSr 8^88*8 



■■■^■■■■■■■■■■■a 13 



•■ 

000*00 
OOOBO0B 

3OOBO0OBB 

oooeooooaa 
oooboooobqb 

0oobpo00obobb 
00003 soqooooooooooociooooobooooosboob 
oooooooooooooonoooonoociooooooooooBoae 

00033 3OO00000000033 00 rrjOOBOOOOOOOBOOOBB 
BOQ0330a0 33 000onnnoo33aOOaH10003000B)OOQOB 

oaooBOonaoonooooooooooouoBoooooooooBooooB 

-iri'-nn.-i;).!.] 'tuauti )30Q- looiojnn^aaj iboooob 

OOajijaanooooonnnoiDoajoninnnmnoonooiOODOM 

cooooooauooooooooooooooooBoooinooooooaooooPOB 

0000300000300000003000300000000000000080000 008 



GAINESVILLE 



ooaooo 00000000003 a 


olioooobooooooooooooboo 


■ 


i >-.-. icioiiooflirini'i 


v 


30003 3 0O0 


oaoooooo 


00330000 


OQOOOO'JOOQBOr 


22^522251626 "g 


co^rou 


wj:oLi3nujio.> 



ooooooooooooobooooooooociooooooo 

ooo oooo 20 oo o ob oo no ooono oooooooa 

ooonnooooooooBoooo30 003oooooooo 

oconooooooooaBOOOOOOOOOJonooooo 

uooosoooocoaoooooooo 



-itd: 



BBBB 

0000000000000 SB « 

000000000000 300BBB B 

03000000000 00000OOBBB 

OOOOOOOO 000000300BB 



3 3 00B0O0OOOOO0OOOBOOOO0OOnO000OO0OOBOO0O00OQOOOO0OO003OOOBaO3O0D0000000a0 OOOOOOOO 
.JTOOBO^on^jncmooBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOJOOBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000000 3B 

330000 ->oo3ooP3aooBnoooaooaooooooaooaooooooooooooooooo30ooBonoonooooooooo doodopoob 

3OOOBnnOOOOOOOanoBOnnnooo0O00O3O00nB03OOOnODOOnoOOO3 3 3303B000OOO3OOOOOOO 00OOO0O0B 
T100B0O0030OO3OnOBOO( onoronOdOOOO^OBOOOOJaO B0030000003000 3000000 OB 

ooooaoooooaooooujauooooaoonooooooooBoooajoo 030000000300083303003000000 ooooooob 
nncBonoaooooooooBOoooooooooooooonooooooooo oooooooooooor^TaTOOooooooo oooooooa 

33n0B[100r tR 5T. J-njBno(i')0!.= 5.o0 303300BC|62l l ' ln 03000003030 31/2^300030000 0OOOO0DDB 
i .».■■■ °-:- ->naoBOOOOQU?Jt,SoOOOOOO«OOOOOOn OOOOOD030303OBOO30O000OOO OOOOOOOB 

■ i unf'.i loonooooooooooBoooaooo noooooooaoooaooooooooooo ooooooob 

TioDloi-.mijn.ni-wonannooonooaoOioaonaoo ooooooo3330B oooooob 

, , t ., ..i- i -io i ■ >'j3BOnooOO000OO00O0OBO00OOQ0O00 0000033 Boooooooooooooooona 

30000BO030OO000O 0000003 330B003000300M6I8 OOfl 



OOOOOOOB 
DOOt 



OOO OOOBOO 

S OOOOOOOOOB 

eBBBBBaBaBBflBaBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBaBBBBBaaBBaaBBBB 
*BnOlOOOOOUO0OBOOOOOOOO030 3OBOO0O03O00O OOOOOOOOOOOOUOBOOOO OOOOJOOOB 

• BO' i-jm I-;., IB00OO00OOO0OO0B3O0O00O000 000000000003 O OOOOOOB 

♦ BO^JOTD U30D3B00O0OOOO0n00BO00On0O00i»O OOOOOOOOOOO ISTH 0000 OOOB 
•B003003O33QO3BOOO0000O0OOB OOnoOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO ST. 300000 3B 

•B a a 000000000000 oooooooa 

• •**»»*» ♦ *♦* 000n0O03O0r)000r»00 r "i'»« r >00a00B033000000B 

3TH •*•»*»•» ftTM *♦♦♦ wain oooooooonan 
ST. ti, ST. »♦*• ST. OOOOOOOOOOO 



,I620 



•**•»•*••*••• **•**••• »*BaBBBBaaa ibth »ve. Fai'aaaaf>Bar8t>Faf>B8aaB»BBaaBBaBepBBB«aaBBBB88a8BBPBf)re0aaa 

:::::::,«4":::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: :::::::::::::::: ::::::■::: jeRt:::::::*??.::! 



3 )'■' 



30000000 



Don k!S59u » i 

0000000003 3 i 



|l656 t i 



• • • BBBaaBaaaaaaaaaaaas'jNi vE°st r 



B IRHSH98BM8HBHW 

8RRBBHFB9BHRRBO OOOHOCJOn '«^FIIltll •■■■■••■■llllllklltll Itl III I I 

anHRHnesese^eeeeesss oobo Poonanoooormoooooi3oo33onB99Bflaaaaa ■■■■■■■■■■■■«■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■• 

■■•s9^ ...BBBBBBB™ 9ae8*H<Di=> ooan aaonnnoonofinoaoooooo3003B9BBaBBBBB ■■■■■*•■■■■■■■■■■■*•*■«■■■■■• 

. .I™?. . . .i»«seH8lo44 HI Bflft fl flfl nmn oconnoonoo .A^^aooiiaDli^liliiii ■•■■•■■•■■■■«■■»>■■■■■•■■■■ 

laMHH^e^H^lxB-^HS OOBO OOOOOnOOOO lJ :?.TJj0OO00 33a988BBBeiaBB iiiiiiiiiiiiihiii>355 ■■■■■■• 

iNjM^j^JHHigia^MH^ OOBO OOOOOO J > *"? * ■"*8 81 1 8 88 ••■■■■•••■■■■••■•••• I •■■■• P ■ ■ 

•••»•♦•• ♦ HH^hH-iJil^flBaemBuO^rt OOBO OOOOOOOO 3 HO OOmnOO0 0B a "<i<»BBBBBBe BBBBBBSBBBBB BBBB ■■■■■■■■■■ BBI 

*.4***».., a a ooao 0000000000 unooia^sv,,,,,,,, ■flflsasss««aaasBBBBBBBflflBiiBii 

*.l635i.. >■ 130 3 OB OoonooooBOnin < i ■"*■?-. Jj --«■•■••• ■•iillUlltliiimilimiiaii 

*»**•••*• b o oooooooa nonooo""«'" i ooo 8 8B «8aBBBHeeePe 8808 V8ea*CB8eaea*ae neeBPB en«f< BE> Gf> BCHCC BX 99 
116498 



none 



II^Imm'IIII !!&£&*■ 



1646 n.J645 « HU 



on 



-1 IflftU 



IMH9 
Or. I B 88 8 
OB88BP 

'i»«ie 



oooooi'6S4, 

O0OnO0OOOn.nBB9*«8BB888989BBBea 

1 00 OBBBBSPWaBPS 999089 383 9»9«883> 
IM»-"??^tiaflS^-^|ftai65gieffmB 



asaBBBflBBaaaaaaBaaaaaBaa 

8ct89 8BaBBflaaaaaaBaaaBafla 



saaes 

88888 

9868 88 888 089 888 



BBB 03COB 
88 8 II 

BBB nomnoooOOB 

jjW'-n ioa ■ io .'9 

300OOOOO000OOB 

onoooooooooooa 



aaaaaasaaaaaB 

BBBBBBBSBBBaeaBaa 

BaaaaaaBB 
>■■■■■■■■ 



3 1O0B»» ».*.*. »»••.«!■ 
330Oa»**«»«*»*«**»*B. 

^ooob. •♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦** *B* 
. 3300B »♦»•♦*♦♦♦♦»»♦ ♦ a* 
.0O0B*.»*»*#4»»»*»B** 

.3ona»»»*»*»»»»**»a*. 

•« .00B»*»***»*»»»*»B»» 

•?s::::::::::js*>.:: 



.as*aa 

aa 

.BBBB 



SOLUTE v«LU 



anoonooooooo 



•B8B88SB8B 88 







000000000 




flBBBBBaaB 






O000O3PO0 




BBBBBaaaa 




•*2*»»* 


000033000 




!■■• ••■• 






O0OOP3O00 


889888899 


BBBBBflBBa 




******* 


OOOOQ >00Q 


888888889 


Baaaaaaaa 



The preparation of this map 
was financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



DATA FQ3M AlACM 



1 0O3OD ] 


188498 


IOO30P! 


I 99 498 


1033301 




I00300I 


198488 


I 00 300 I 


188498 


100 3301 


IH848H 


IOQ330I 


IH949M 


1003001 




1003001 




100 3001 




100 3001 




1003001 




I00300I 




IO0 300I 




CUUMTY 


SCHOOL PO 



IBBSBBI 
II Hi 

i bbsbbi 



MAP 19 

AVERAGE READING 
COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES 

8TH GRADE PUPILS 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE . FLORIDA - 1970 



•••OB 

♦*booobb 

♦*bo3oobb 

■ .*.■ ':_ . .ioe 



a 16)6 



laaaaaBaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaBaaaaa i>t 



*eoOon33Dn3ioOBaoooooo 

»B00Ci'1J30LI30O0B0Da0O33. 
.10 330 3300000080000000 
*B033a3 3O0DJ0QB00OOO00 
*B0 3rmJ3aJJ0O0B3DOO0O3 

•Booomnnnnoonaooooooo 
*looonnoomonniooooooO' 



'1623 ? 



j'Jil 



U«JL! 1 



"l622 - ,aoojll «*162i 



OB 0000 0000000100 33 
31O33303BOOOOnOO0O0OO00O0 

iT300 5000BOOnrlOOOOOOOfl0030 
lOO'llOCOBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
3 3 30 3 3 03B0O00OODOOOO0000B 

)in,norin»nooiDniitiooou 



-888 34T 

... .bb sr 

BB« 



BDf3a<J3 3000Ouaa0UO0000OO003 
B0O0030003OOJB00000000n000 
B030030030O00B00OOOOOO0000I 
B0D00330030O0a00OO0000000B 



onao|-> 



0000000 000B003000 



BBBB 
aoooooooooooooo BB 
0O0000O000O00O OOOIil 
0000000000000 OOOOOOOBi 
0003000000000 00000000 
00D000000O00 000000030 
oonooooooooo OOOO00OOB 

00100003000 OOOOGOOOB 
00000000000 00000003B 
0O00OO0000 00000000B 
noioonoooo 00O0000B 
O03000000 00O0000B 
OOOOOOOO 000O0000B 
OOOOOOOO O0000008 
0003000 00OD000S 

OOO00OB 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOB 
000000i|6IS ooa 



000 000003 



noooool620 fij 
0000000003333 
000010 OOO0003 
0000000003003 



OOUOOflUB 
BBBBBBBB 

OO0O00B 
0O3J0B 
003B 



3B003 



;i62e" ;;;;;;";;;; ;;;"";;;;;;; ;;;;::; ;;;:;;; ;;;;„; ............... ■! 

.'.i... ....« '.'. .. i 

B ■ 

■ 1631 •*** 



JUuuOOOOBOC. 
T300300OB0O' 
330000flOBOO( 



J0303 



1-13 J 



.1 TOM 



r«ii629 ;::::::: 



|-|)[)T)30i:OD1 

B 

HBHaHHFHHRPHHHM1HHHBHHHBHHBflflHHHHHIHUH8BaMBBBHH 
IRSyB^-UJrt-.-H 

88888*9,899898 

1633 *•• ^ rtB()3 



H^iis I:::::::::::: iisiisiilliliS^^iliilliiii' 

nnnnnnin .... J^.^.R .*»* QQOOil S' <"i33libIb9999998RB9' 

3 3)656 H 



nonoi: 



30BB8 



^et.893 



..B83999B6 
.ael657j B 8 



8&B9SBeBBPH8e9ft3i3Bs«B 

■ aa8Basessaaeea«a4^nw« 

989386838998689891655 
8 88 B99 8668888868 8SBB8fc 
999999e968HB99RM969eeC 

a sag 99 ©sees p ee ess eeee * 
aae98ee998999Bne989ee( 



OF F.O*IO* 



33000)1 

oooooa 



inon03Q!K 
oooies^r 
ooooooooc 



ooaaaaea 

naaaaasa 

0BBBBB88 



9869999998999999999 

888898 889999 9RH9999 



■BBBBBsaaBeeBBBBBBeBBsaeaeaaae 



89688 8688889999896 
■aaae 8899989899988 



■■■■■ 1888888888888 



»m (iiiiiiiiiiiMii ea 

9eaaaaaBBaaaBaBaBBaaaaeBaaB bi 
iti iiiiiniiiiitiiiiii 

saaflBaaBaaaaaaa BaaaaaBaaaaaB 
Himtiiitese ■■■■■■■■■■■■■I 

-<ll*>IIIIM*ltl«l(l Il« 

aaaaaaaaaaaaBBBaaaBaaaaaaaaB 
BBBBBBBBBBBaaaaBaaaaaaaBaaaB 



iBeee^BBHBeenHRBfl^aiB-iBBeBBBeaBBi 

898888988489999 89 98 8988988889 88 8 81 
8 68888889 6868 98 BB6B86 8 88888 8« 6 81 
B. . 8888888988888888 8 8 89 9 8888984 881 

B. . . 888998988888889988888896889661 
8. . . 888888888aBe88848«H8eB88988B6i 
B. . . . 888888868888881^361 188886888881 

a eeeeeeaeeaea es 38888 8989988 ee i 

B 8888868899689988888688888861 

98B 8869888899988899968 

■ 699988898888 9 



P Ill 

eaaaaaaBaaa 



666668888 



INCLJOFO IN 



■ 88 
8BB8B 

BBBBaaa 
■■■■flim 

aasaaaaaBBB 

8888888888888 

>■■■•■■■•«••■■ 

BBBBaBBaaSBBBB 

*■•>■■■•■ 

••■■•■•*■ 

aaBaaaaaa 
aaaaaaaBB 



e r*ng= 

24.32 



80nuuonoonnaBB 
FEfT 



■00000000090 



The prepaxatlon of this map 
wis financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



I00330I 


188*661 


100 330 1 


1884881 


10033OI 


1864861 


1003001 


1684861 


I00300I 




1 00 3001 




I003301 




tOQ 3001 




1 003101 




1003001 




I 00 3001 





888888888 



laasaat 

1885881 

taasaai 



MAP 20 

AVERAGE READING 
COMPREHENSION TEST SCORES 

4TH.6TH , a 8TH GRADE PUPILS 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE . FLORIDA - 1970 



Bsaaiieaaa 



>■ 
seem 

eeeaesa 

seeaseeeana 
fleeaHPsesaeea 

RRVRSBeBBSeBI 

-.Baeg^^eaaofifeeseeBeeeBB 



•BBBBBB—W— aj— — 



f!«ffFI 



a a aa 
B o •» • 

B aa 



ffftfEEK 



"- — -^ 



BBBBBBBBBBBf 



!EEc<t£Elfl>!Ei 



BB IIKIIIH 



I^'4'9^^^«H^aaaJ!II" 

3r-!- = J"-?d--r IHIIIII 
e 999806 ■■■■■«■: 



afiBBBBBBBceBBBeaBaBaaaBaBB 



•BBBBBBBaa 






f. BaBBBBBBBBBaaBBBBBBBBmBBBBrBBBBBBBBBaBBBBBBBBBBBBaaeeBaiBBBBaBa 

• »» e a 

** * • ; \ ' 1624- " " "_ c .625\ 



::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::*»::::::::::Ssi 
'632:::;;:;::::::; ::;:::::::::::::::::::! 

» ....t...,ti.. g aj 

1»H »V». MnR^HMH^l^HHhtfiaNHttHaBHOBeBRBPBBBBBHHHHMHH^HHM^eH 



«IBie«EEtfHE 



cej' ►♦• -~-~>cl^?->-C.. IB BB BBBBBBB BIBB BBBBBBB IKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllll 

P?^, »•* -i-si °,>jj^-i. Eiiiiiiiiiiiiiim ■iiiniiiiiaiiitinifiiiiiii 



ll nil lllfiimiliiil 

Illllll'656 nm II BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB' 

llllllllllllllllllllllll IIMIIIIIIIIIII 



HIMII- 



1629 ■*.*** 

.••lllltlMIIIMIIMII^I.I - 



IIIIUIIMIIIII 



■ aaa iiiiiimiiiiiiii e - = ■ 

■ ■■■ ■■■■■iniiiiiiiiiiiim 



8S«BB9B*? = eE-FF 



!6*6 16*5 



■ IIIIMIUMII 



■ 



,. ,-,_ :.... 65 



>639 aaa 

BB 

BBB 

BBieaa 

BBB ----a 
BBB if 
BBB BBBBeoadBBB 



BBBBBBBBBBB B 164888 
BBB '61^11 BBBBBBBBB 


sab. 9s 




IIIIIIKMIIIIIIFMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SI IB BBB 


1 Ill 


BBBB8 * 

BBSS 


= 


aaBBBBBBaasaaaaa 
BBBBBBaBBBBaaaa 


• ■■lllltliiiiill'IIIIIIIMIillllM a a 

IIIIIIIMIIIIIII Hlllltllllll 9 9 
















.:::::::. " 

■■BBBBBBBBB 

— — BBB— — B 

■■■■■■•■■■■■■■111 



B. . 

8. . 

8. . 

- * .6*^ " • 



IIIIIIIIHMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIII 

in :iiihi - iiiiiimiiiiiiiu 



20.03 20.CC 



u£ **".G = «- •_ • 
?C.C0 2C 



- LEVEL 

?;.cc 



000 AOOO 

a a 

b ■ 



The preparation of this map 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



■ BB 

M BB 
S B 



« 


B 


B 


1 1 


, , 


I .. 1 . . t 


: ..2**1 


" 


169*981 


1 II III 


I ..1 . .1 


1 * -2*.I 


10.130 1 


1.33**9! 


: BB5BB1 


r .. 1 .. 1 


I ••?•»! 


I1031PI 


1 <?9*Mdl 


1 nit 




I»*2»» 1 


ic.niLi 


1 e^t^ I 


ll ll 






■ 




• ■ •• 




I ♦*2».I 


1003101 


1 ^^0, 
Ia9*99t 
1*19*991 


laasnii 
laasawi 
1 ■ ■ ■ ■ 

aa at 

1885881 
till 



MAP 21 

AVERAGE FLORIDA 
PLACEMENT TEST 



1 



SENIOR 
SCORES 



I2TH GRADE PUPILS 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 
CITY OF GAINESVILLE , FLORIDA - 1970 



oooaoooae 
oooboooobb 
OOOaoooOBOB 
OOOMOOOOIOH 

■.'- : mn,iO, in IUi'DOO]C300CCI ', j .1 "» ■ ■. ".I 

ooooooooooooooooooooqqoi 

00003000000 oooooooooooooobooooooobooobb 

oona vmoonnnotinooooooooooaoooo ijooaooone 
00003 rtoooooooooooooooooooaoo 0003 oooboooob 
or,: aiocoO'-iortJoooonJOOLj^o ie i 3000000000000 OBJ 
ocoo3 3unouoooooooooooooooaoooooooooaoaoaooaa 

noooooncmjoococoiooccoO'-'onooiDOijr.'ini 

■ ■■? .-?-..'■ :ij:K.fii..--,; ■ ■ 

«■*•■••■« ■^•••■•^••■••■■•(■^•■■■■■•■■■■■■■■cai 

00033?01uCOO >Xi0303C030COB3000 jOOOOOOOBu^JU :iJ00 30OOO0 0080000000000000000 DOOTCB ■■■ 

J.'j. i " r - I* ">C ] TO '.: jlT'BDhl.Ji n.'nOOOO000OOO»Oar)OOOOOC0OOOOOOOD003«OO3OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 

3003J30003300000000aOJ30Dau ]O0Oa0OQO0OB000000au000O00000BO0000O00O0aO00J0o3a00B0O->00000O000Q0a00 
0-l» rTTC.-^e '. '■ ■ ■ -!3a3000OUOOO0OG0O0O0OO0000000O0000O0O000000DB0O300000O00000U0 

ooooooooooI^yjo'jooooooooaooooiJoooooooBoooooooooooooouooaoooooooooooooooooDOOOBoooooooooooonooo 

■ii up !.-■■ ■ i- . i - .■■■.■(..»-■,■-■'■.;:.■.. i .■ -i IDOOOOOBOOOOOOOOOOOQQaa 

00O0300OOOaO000033O0O300O0Q30000nO0nu0BOO0OOO0OO00O00000BO000O000000OO000oa00OB0O00 



0000300000000' 

O0O333U00O0OOOOO0H 
0003:30300030000 J0O0O3SC " >■ TH''" 1 
•(ftiiiltlltiinrii p 

» * *t . . ■•■ .1 . I , ■ I - ,■ 1 

»♦»».. •■■OUD0OOOU300OOOJUI BODC r 

• •Mitttiouaiooniii'i .■ icoi o< Jr 
****** ,**B^ jji i.i. ■ o-i'ici: .J OB. J JC 

♦♦♦•♦••♦••BOOOUO I 1 

• ♦**■ « 

****** • ♦••••»OC(10O0OOjOOOB0">3OO 

»•*•»• **»***aooooooooooooaoooori 
*••♦»•♦* •Monoarojoafjoooou 



D DOOOOOOOt 



000800300 3 00000000 
300B0 0300000000000 
■ooooooooaoooo 
000 



00000(1083 300003000000 

ooooooeooooooo 

IOOOOM tOOOOOO iOodj 

OOOOOOBOOOOOOO 000000003033 rcra")0O000OO00 

.)OUOJ(llL|g2|:OD o0OOO0O3 333G0.j530000Q0O0 

ooooooiooooojo ojoooooooooooeooooooooooo 

OOOOUOBOOOOOOO oooooooooooooaooaooooooo 

f 3QJ.J.J3333JuB 

• . ■ ■■ -> xio; • 

"> B ■■-■■' ' ' « 161 

■f _ 0OOO0 3 ) • 



••oooooooooa 

• •:n"j' 90000 

••3000030000 



• •♦ Ot* •*•••»•• 6lt oooo 
«** SI. •••••••♦ ST. 0000 

*♦♦ 0000 

************* BOOOOOOOOOI 

r»e*ci»Miiiiiiieill«»lMni 



llltJ$?Sliil\moi , $.?. s j 



. «t •■■■■■■■■«■««■■••< 
riiim •kiihii 

.(HUI|l644tailHII 

■ ■■■•«■*■■■•■■••■■«■■ 
>■■■•■■■■■■•*■■■■■■■ 
'<■■*•■■• •■■■••■••■•>■ 



ooJ630nu» 

********** oooooooooa 
oooooooooa 

bmJjOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOfl 




i©47 •asaeaae 



«9'W- ■«■■■ 



a rooooooG a jog d iooooi 

oooooooooou3ojooo""-""> r "*oo3oaaoo3oonoooi 

N 000000000000000O0I62O00000B03 3 033008 

. nooooooooooooooooooooooooooao3ooo3oas 

nojDUO lououououooou j^'idojoImdcitji 
0*300000U000000000000000003000B003003fl 

•aaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaf>«eaeaaaaaBBeaaaeaaa 

9 ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooa a 

i • : 2 '.XI6SO""" 1 



o ooonouonii nc 
oooonoooooo 



>a eeaeaeaaaaeBaaaeeeaae t aaeBsaauaasaeeaeaeaeaeae-^aa 

0a ■■■■■■•■■••■•■•••■«■■■• ^SHH8»fH — : -h ,--.-,--, ~---h 

oaaaiaaa eeBaeeeeasaeaaseeeeaeeeaeeeeeeavdeaseeeo&e^ae 



**9-»-1 



«a«afirtBor'HM t .-H 



i— oe 
lajaeaajMi 

jo; i.i' -i ) j jot •BBa^'saaiedaaae^anasaafleaaeeeeeeeeBeBea 

"'- i4 unoa-i^rtBWHaHaeanBHseewfiaaeBBBBeais&etHaaeesea 

i -i BsaaaeaeaBBasBsaeeaeBeaaeaa aaupeeeseseeee 

JOJJ ) ) i iB»'»«S9i3riaHBH99399Hw»*W9'*iatfdBftadHent<MBi*--iM-^HP 
i:i1iT-itlllAB4Hab«4eeiB»a4BBBHiaBa«BMR8B8e8B««eflH BBP6£*9 

(inf«-MHt.HHrtHPMi*ft^B-.Mi659"ii8eBBeftRBBefl8e8eB9p>9« aaaee 
iseaeeeaee^aaaeftadaaeetjssedtfBeaeeudneeesdBbesaneeseBBB a 

laeeeBneeeeaaeeaaeeaeaBseeaBaeaaaBBeepaacwieeeaaeaBaefflH 
)Beaee«aa^ciu>a*4ri99AeBd9c<99 9cida99 9ai3etiE>ii65S efleRHRABaa^eH 
tBeeaaaaa^aaHHaAaaB^gaaa^a^as^saHe^aesa^aeeB^eaaeeaaee 

|HH««rtH8HO^rtrHJ-l>tKSSHaflt98B8lJ99ljr<lrtH*»lHri-<S»HnHp^e^ f .HMH«^HHfl 

aee&*aea<38*3a£*a8He£-»BBuHnaa^He-4B>-<a&Ht4*at*aaat4eeeeeaeeeaaeaa 



INCLJDED IN 



■ ■■■■ 

BBBBBSB 

•BSSBBBBB 

••■■■■■■■KB 

BBBBBaBBBBBBB 

•■■■■•■•■•■■■■I 



OOOOOOOOOM 



B ■»■' ' 

t iiiun ■■ i.H 

• ■ - IC-A'^'.'IJ IB 

BQono uurPT'iuyjoi. 


■■■*■•■■ 


■■■■■■■■■■BBBBSBBBSBIB 


■w 




■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I 


■ «i 


r i .03 ■■; i[. in '.if n'i«;a. 


. ■■■■Ill 


■■■■■■■■■■BBBBBBBBBSBI 


tai 


a 
a. . 


lOOOOOOOOOOOOfl. 

ooooooooa.. 














•••••••••• ■■•■«••■• 


■ 






































■• . 




. ..a 




■ 


B. . 




..a 




B 


B. . 

a. . 


16**3 


..a 

.a 




B 

a 
















a 




a 




a a 




a 


i. . 


a a 






a 


i 








a 


i. . 


b. . . -a 






a 




B..BB 






B 




a a. .a 






a 




.BB.BB 






a 



ABS3LUTE 



»NGE *DPLYIN& TO E»CH LEVEL 



EACH LEVEL 






oounonooooo 



sBBBaaaaaa ■■ 



The preparation of this map 
was financed in part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department ol Housing 
and Urban Development. 










; CC*Iltt!» 


000000000 


e8flH««9o« 


iiiitim 


s 




. *»**2...* 


000030000 


9wBH*aejia 


■••■■••> 






• ••♦*»**»• 


OOOOOOOOO 

ooooooooa 


esaeeeeee 


aaaaaaaaB 


M 


====== 


== i ======== 


========= . 


1 


..1 ..1 


1 »»2*»l 






1BBSBB1 


2 


.. 1 . . 1 


l»»2»» 1 






■ ■ ■• 




..1 ..1 


r •♦2** i 


IOO30OI 


i*H«eei 


IBBSBBC 






■••2**l 


1013001 


i 8a*aei 








1 *♦;.. t 


IOO 300 1 


iua*aai 








I**2»*l 


IOQ3001 
I0Q3001 
1003001 
1 033001 
103 3001 
100 3001 
IOO30OI 
IOO3001 
1003001 






IS 






100 3001 






16 






IQ03001 







be a fairly strong inverse relationship between educational achievement and overcrowding con- 
ditions (i.e., that as the percent of units per district that were overcrowded, or more than 1.00 
persons per room increased, the average reading comprehension test score per district decreased 
or worsened) . 

Also in relation to housing quality, the results indicated that in all likelihood some relation- 
ship existed between: 

1. The average grade 4 and grade 8 reading comprehension test score per district and: 

a. the percentage of Black occupied units per district (-); 

b. the percentage of substandard housing units per district (-); as the average 
grade 4 and grade 8 test score increased (improved) per district, the percent- 
age of Black occupied housing units decreased per district, and the percentage 
of substandard housing units per district increased. 

2. The average grade 6 reading comprehension test score per district and the relative 
housing value per district. As the average grade 6 test score increased, the rela- 
tive housing value per district increased also. 

Weak relationships were brought to light between: 

1. The average grade school reading comprehension test scores per district and: 

a. the percentage of Black occupied housing units per district (-) ; 

b . the relative housing value per district (+) ; and 

c. the percentage of substandard housing units per district (-) . 

2. The average grade 8 reading comprehension test score and: 



80 



a. the percentage of renter occupied units per district (-); 

b. the percentage of vacant units per district (-); and 

c. the relative housing value per district (+) . 

With reference to those variables that delimit relationships other than housing quality, see Table 4, 



. 



81 



Table 4 

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT 

AND OTHER SOCIAL VARIABLES 





Percentage of families re- 
ceiving aid to families with 
dependent children/district 


Rate of persons receiving 
aid to dependent children/ 
district 


CO .2 
C £ 

> 2 

m T3 

u ■*» 

01 XI 
U 01 

to X) 
C ™ 
o '■" 

S 3 

5i 

° o 

41 " 

a a 


Rate of unlawful behavior 
Re: crimes of violence/ 
district 


o 
w. '£ 

2 ■ 

« ^ 
ra -^ 

■C at 

01 01 

•° E 

3 « 

£* 

C 01 

3 a 
a 

° s. 

01 

re o 

a x, 


u, tl 
.2 H 

ra —• 
x: x) 
01 ~- 
XI f> 

01 

3 .5 
t; »■> 

> o 

ID 

c S 

3 C 

o a 

01 

re o 
K K 


Percentage of families with 
children that are less than 
18 years old who are not 
husband-wife type families/ 
district 


tj 

H 

n 

•3 

■ 

01 

ra 
u 

A 

ra 
01 
Q 


Average grade 4 reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 


Average grade 6 reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 


Average grade 8 reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 


Average grade school read- 
ing comprehension test score/ 
district 


in 
0) 

C 
01 

£ 

01 

u 

ra 

"5. 
u 

•2 r 
a S 

01 u 
w *-» 

in 

55 
2 » 

g o 
< m 


<a 
a. 
>> 

a 

i 
■ 

•o 
c 

ra 

XI 
V) 

3 

« tj 

o '£> 

o .3 

CD XI 
ra -» 
- <" 

C 01 

oi 2 

£ 1 


ra .2 

£ J3 

•r, 
° ? 

p a. 
o > 

CI XI 

co 
ra xl 

a g 

0) k. 
*"■ u 

a. 5 


Percentage of occupied units 
with a telephone available/ 
district 


Average grade 4 reading 
comprehension test, score/ 
district 


S 






S 


w 


w 


S 




SV 


H 

+ 


H 

+ 


H 

♦ 




s 

+ 




S 


Average grade G reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 








W 






W 




H 

♦ 


SV 


H 

♦ 


H 

+ 




s 

+ 


W 


H 

+ 


Average grade 8 reading 
comprehension test score/ 
district 


S 




s 


s 


w 


w 






H 


H 

■f 


SV 


H 




s 

+ 


w 


S 

+ 


Average grade school read- 
ing comprehension test score/ 
district 


W 


W 


w 


w 






w 




H 

+ 


H 

♦ 


H 

+ 


SV 




s 

+ 




S 

+ 


Average senior placement test 
score/district 


























SV 









SV = Same variable 

H = High degree of association 

S = Some association 

W = Weak association 

Blank spaces indicate that little or no relationship exists 

♦ = Positive relationship 

= Inverse relationship 



82 



Possible Areas of Future Investigations : 

1. Truancies, tardiness, school attendance rates, 

2. High school drop-outs, 

3. Juvenile delinquencies , 

4. School vandalism , 

5. School children receiving medical treatment, 

6. School children receiving dental treatment, 

7. Student- teacher attitudes , 

8 . Parent attitudes , and 

9 . Community attitudes . 



83 



FOOTNOTES 

50 B.M. Gross ,ed. Social Intelligence for America's Future (Boston, 1969), p. 19. 

51 Merrill, p. 338. 

52 George H. Gallup, Fourth Annual Gallup Poll of Attitudes Toward Education (April 21, 
1972) . 

53 Ibid. , p. 34. 

54 Ibid. 

55 Wilner, pp. 241-252, as listed in Gutman, pp. 189-201. 



84 



Chapter 9 
MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSES 



The past chapters have described those social and environmental variables depicting 
quality of life characteristics; explained the logic pointing up the conceptual make-up of the 
social indicators; mapped the variables according to increasing quality of life characteristics; 
and pointed out the correlational analyses which described those variables that were related 
as well as their strength of relationship. 

This chapter will explain three other statistical techniques or multi-variate analyses 
designed to handle large amounts of useful and descriptive information and present them in 
the simplest possible terms. These multi-variate analyses include z-scores, multiple re- 
gression, and factor analysis. 

Z -Scores 

Basically, a score which generally has results ranging somewhere between -3.00 to 
+3.00, is one which expresses an enumeration district's position in a given distribution both 
with respect to the mean (average) for the city and with respect to the variability. By con- 
verting the original scores to z-scores, each district may be ranked according to how well 
it fared in relation to each variable. 

In essence, a z-score allows for the conversion of any score into a standard score 
provided that the mean and standard deviation for the distribution of which it is part is 
known. It may be expressed in the following formula: 

z = x - x 
s x 



85 






where: 

z = standard score 

x = raw score 

x = the mean (or average) of the variable for all the enumeration 
districts 

s = standard deviation for the variable for all enumeration dis- 
tricts 

The main advantage of z-scores is that they provide a means for comparing raw scores 
taken from different distributions. 

Table 5 below shows the resulting z-scores for the variables which were utilized in this 
study when they are applied to the enumeration districts. 



86 



Table 5 



Z-SCORES 













CITY OF GAINESVILLE ENUMERATION 


DISTRICTS 




























a 




\ 


"^ 




















H 

J 

fl. 

o 
n 

E 

+ 


X 

H 

to 


H 

O 

3 

H 

to 

a 


>• 

m 
a 


H 

X 

o 

< 
s- 
w 

Q 


i 

Q 


to 
w 


to 
u 

J 

(x, 

Q 


to 

05 
M 

a 
2 

H 

s 


■J 

< 
H 
O 
H 


1 — 
H 
O 

i 

> 


H 
O 

5 


H 
O 

3 

H 
to 








K 
u 


o 

■H 


2 


H 
2 




•J 


TAL DIVORC 
ES/DISTRICT 


H 

fa 


u 

Q 


X 


E VALUE TO 
STRICT 


< 
■J 


H 
to 






H 
O 

3 


F UNITS RENT 
RICT 


X 
H 

to 

5 H 


3 

Q 
U 


< 
U 
< 
> 

to 

H 


ITS OCCU 
STRICT 


F SINGLE FAM 

IT 


i 

a 

2 

< 

to 


< 
Id 

X 

w 

< 
S 


MILIES WI 
RICT 


< 

H 
O 
H 
O 
H 


3 

w 

3 

< 
> 


5 

H 

05 
O 
O 






H 

to 

5 


w s 
o 8 


O « 


2 
u. 


u, to 


2 3 


3 
X 
0. 


w 

u, 

u. 


< H 

0« (O 

u. 3 


2 w 


H 
Z 


O 
Z 

(fl 

3 
O 

X 


O 
Z 






Z 
O 


o 5 
g 3 


° 5 


O 

H 

O 




o u 

u — 


o < 

Ok 

w 

O Q 


o 

UJ 

o 


o 

H 
U 


O -~- 

00 


ILACK h 
E VALU 


w 

3 
O 
X 
H 






2 


2 Q 


CENTA 
ROOM, 


«: z 
H O 


< 


< < 


< to 

>- 5 


< u 


^ 13 


h h 


< 2 

H 3 


S E3 


H 






z r 


2 X 


2 


2 £ 


2 " 


2 < 


2 " 


z H 


2 £ 


m u 


ca 


O 






s 




w a. 
O w 


u 




U (O 


U 05 
U < 


w 2 


w 5 

05 £ 


UJ t™ 1 
O to 


S s 


RATIO 
DISTRI 


< 


S 






a 


« P 


cs a 


05 J 


a 


05 < 


K 5 


K C 


05 to 


C5 (O 


H W 


►J 


M 






z 


w o 


Hi UJ 


w w 


w 


u -J 


w z 


W U 


UJ x 


.w g 


w w 


K < 


W 


> 






H 


0u C 


ft. Ou 


Cu H 


Oc 


Cm C} 


CU 3 


o, to 


o, Q 


0. Q 


CU J 


05 


< 




r 


161a 


-".725 


:. . - 2 s 


C.2df 


C.CJ8 


-'1.577 


-j .18 V 


-0.7i 7 


0.2 38 


-0.427 


C.212 


-0.675 


-l.02d 


-0.531 


-0.358 






lol9 


-1.3 *»d 


-C343 


v .o7o 


-0. 76 3 


-0.543 


I .135 


-^.7d I 


0.644 


-O.790 


1.46V 


-0.691 


UU37 


0.214 


0.777 






162' 


-l.f 4. 


-'.33o 


C . 7 1 1 


-•..633 


-L.333 


l.iHT 


-f'.7J 3 


f . 3 o 6 


-0.394 


1.122 


-0,717 


-l.CCO 


0.186 


C.605 






le21 


-1.' 3 7 


-C.29-. 


0.7«.l 


-l.lBtf 


-0.577 


1.12 


-'•.949 


0.719 


-0.581 


0.93') 


-0.675 


-1.013 


0.236 


0.639 






lt>22 
16 2 J 


-«■ .247 
-: ,492 


- . <• > 7 
-V.4di 


C.£4o 
' . 5 1 2 


- 0. (56 6 

-r. 4j > 


-n.487 

-. .3ol 


-0.119 

' .HVO 


-0.164 

- •« . 7 > 1 


0.413 
Ci.64 7 


-0.3 70 
-d.644 


-0.04 6 

-0.112 


2.542 

-Co 04 


0.257 

-1.014 


-0.264 

'-ft. 06 6 


0.309 
0.442 










lc>24 


-•" .''.'id 


- 1 •ijj'j 


. 5 7 5 


-'..5' , I 


-C.36 3 


C .213 


-t .4-JB 


0.298 


-0.261 


-0.541 


-0.675 


-1.0C7 


0.16C 


0.513 






1623 


r .736 


-0.42-. 


".279 


2.94o 


-r.it55 


-'■.o8 1 


-.6^4 


-').' 14 


0.116 


-0.4J6 


1.174" 


-l' .J4 3 


0.208 


0. 166 






1626 


-•'».'' SS 


-'. .2od 


. 3 6 1 


-C.d<L 


-0.565 


< .1 i 1 


-i. .8<0 


0.721 


-f>.639 


1.40 4 


-0.675 


-1.0C3 


C.1I3 


0.4d4 






1627 


-l. r 29 


- " . 6 4 6 


r!.99o 


-1.421 


-0.3 7 7 


G.71C 


-1.03 3 


0.956 


-0.331 


1.056 


-0.o75 


-1.008 


l.dafl 


0.766 






lo2d 
lo29 


-1.4*!* 

"-'•.v-sZ 


- r .d23 


0.9o5 


-1.42 1 


-0.577 


i.. it-: 

-0.65 3" 


-1.272 

"-C.87 6 


0.655 
C .664 


-0.7 9 
-r.749 


1.176 
T.12 4 


-0.o75 
"^^;675 


-l.oio 

- 1 . V 9 


0.978 
-"T."0 2 8 


0.777 

~urriT 






-Co53" 


p. 5o4~ 


C7~35 7 " 


-7.577 






16 31" 


l.?ri 


-0.7o5 


O.bll 


-f.245 


-f.563 


-1.877 


-C.3o7 


0.752 


-0.70 7 


-0.829 


-0.675 


-I. 00 2 


1.774 


0.777 






1631 


-1.352 


- 1 .C42 


0.996 


- 1.144 


-0.577 


1.111 


-1.018 


1.011 


-l.iU 


-0.541 


-0.675 


-l.Oll 


1.437 


0.758 






1632 


-1.144 


-0.563 


( .943 


-0.85 1 


-0.57 7 


I ."U5 


-C.919 


R.9C2 


-C .828 


0. 553 


-G.675 


-I. Oil 


1.336 


0.651 






16 3 3 


- r . 3 1 3 


-0.0 3 7 


C..692 


-C.61 5 


-C.568 


0.37-. 


-1.01 4 


. 6 U 5 


-0.5 1 1 


-<*-.4dl 


-0.675 


-1.015 


1.025 


0.514 






163- 


-C.597 


- I . C d 5 
-i J 24 s 


O.5o7 

-n.i2f 


-C.4d0 

2.194" 


-C.56C 
"-C.5IT 


C .o>«6 

"=1 .3re 


-0.2 3 
-T.14 9 


0.778 
~ 0.339 


-0.739 

-0.550 


- ■ 3 6 4 

-T. 95 4" 


-0.675 

-0.67 5 


-1.017 
~~I .-I 4- 


C.54-, 

C. 00 


0.454 

~~ rj;r.25 






1 a 3 5 


— i.sir 






l6 4." 


1.212 


-0. 346 


G.614 


C.19C 


-C.577 


-1.265 


-0.934 


1.234 


-1.103 


-0.b98 


-0.675 


- 1 . : i 3 


C.92I 


-0.079 




' 


l64l 


1.661 


-C.632 


c.74; 


C.O40 


-C.556 


-1 .699 


1.350 


0.700 


-C .789 


-1.146 


-0.675 


-l.OOO 


1.50 2 


0.666 






1642 


1.7 31 


■ ■.3)3 


(. .436 


- <; . '. C 6 


-0.550 


-1.42 3 


.978 


0.264 


-0.568 


-1.189 


-0.675 


C.122 


1.538 


3.777 




"' 


1643 


CI 42 


-C.ohI 


C .919 


^.C?" 


- r ..55 9 


-0.4 5 3 


-0.820 


1.020 


-1.00 7 


-1.23 7 


-0.675 


-I. CO 9 


1.967 


0.772 






1 1> 4t 
U45 


' .5d3 


l . " 6 5 

- C. 6 8 5 


-1.964 
-Ci275 


r .2'J9 
-r.372 


2.155 

-0.4 3 3 


3.468 
-•7.^3 2 


*.ll 4 
1.374 


-2.726 
-C464 


2.7d2 

0.36C 


f . . 4 4 1 
-1.232 


1.269 

— - r . 6 ii 4 


1.152 

" C.635 


-0.742 

0.045 


-2.203 
-0.105 










1640 


1.762 


0.25 l 


-C.29G 


I. 92 i 


-0.4-»3 


-1.792 


-0.55 1 


-1.390 


C.295 


-2.^47 


-0.636 


1.587 


0.535 


0.717 






1647 


1.2 33 


-<. .732 


'. .446 


-0.61C 


-C.521 


- r ,939 


0.372 


-0.165 


-0.-74 


-1.309 


-0.675 


-C.039 


0.978 


0.742 






1648 


0.847 


1.124 


-2.^57 


1.312 


1.5 JB 


> . 7 o 6 


2.3oO 


-1.483 


1.40 5 


C.385 


1.232 


1.063 


-t .7C0 


-2. odo 






1645 


-'.666 


-CI K 


-C.974 


r.33 2 


0.036 


-0.79 9 


1.9/6 


-0.871 


C.d32 


-I. 044 


1.619 


0.O64 


- (i . 6 3 4 


-1.6)0 






1650 


-1.6.^7 


-r.nl i 


0.^27 


-1.156 


-C .577 
-T.577 


1.045- 


«-.l3 
-C.799 


0.129 

"•694 


-0.136 
"-C.5 9 5 


,d59 


-0.146 


1.277 


-I.35: 


0.7 77 






"1651 


-l.'!*3 


-r..zn 


— TJ."65r 


~-~ r . 65 3 


^.295 


^•0.67 5 


~=~I.0T7 


r;o36 


0.76T 






1652 


- r .v 1 


-'. .5dl 


C.7-.2 


-C.557 


-0.502 


C.-/:5 


-C .33o 


C.126 


fl. j 6 3 


-C.146 


-1.685 


-G.043 


0.2 17 


0.5d3 






l6?3 


r.154 


-t • dt •» 


'•.311 


C.145 


-C.514 


-0 ^'.'C 


. 1 3 7 


r . 2 1 9 


-0.322 


-r.f>9 7 


0.722 


0.454 


-1.07C 


-0.334 






165*. 


r .5l-t 


-(.32 J 


-0.501 


-'"•.0 31. 


-3.498 


'j. o<- 1 


C .7^6 


a. 166 


-0.273 


-C.8d7 


-0.72 3 


C.511 


-0.273 


-0.634 






1655 


<■. . 1 ft J 


1.496 


-1.1'. 1 


c.^:3 


. 8 4 


-0.^75 


. 3 ■> 6 


-C.647 


1.86 7 


C • oot 


1.67 9 


C.745 


-0.686 


-0.617 






It. 5/ 


-3.264 
C.164 


2.3*1 


-l.k 34 

-1.94C 


1.016 
— C.163 


2.351 
— 1.8 9 8" 


t .551 
0.253 


C.0/5 
-r.35 3 


-2.0'- I 
-<".634 


2.2 90 

""1.U0 


1.426 


I. 296 


1.27I 


-0.641 


-0.936 






— T";i35 


T.757- 


I.155 


-0.745 


-2.oh4 






1638 


-vj.312 


1.998 


-1.199 


1.343 


1.933 


-O.C59 


-0.045 


-1.991 


2.116 


1.659 


1.449 


1.223 


-0.520 


0.045 






1654 


-C.649 


1.585 


-0.450 


C.35 7 


2.057 


1.03 2 


C.2^9 


-1.225 


1.269 


C.865 


1.32 3 


1.297 


-C.497 


-0.695 






16 60 


-( .140 


2.041 


-1.396 


0.95 6 


1.917 


1 .07-. 


2.239 


-1.343 


1.29C 


0.655 


1.442 


I.231 


-0.735 


-1.832 






1661 


f .567 


2.233 


-2.640 


C.63b 


1.36C 


-O.Obd 


C.193 


-l."31 


1.341 


1.399 


0.770 


I. 003 


-0.739 


-0.095 





87 



Table 5 



(Continued) 
























O 


H 


O 








ft. 








-^ 


-** 




O 


S 

o 


O 
2 

5 
o 


O 
2 

2 



2 

2 




2 

w 

a 

H 

O 


2 

CO 

D 
O 
X 


< 


s 

< 
J 


E 

< 
■-1 


>> 
H co 

1 CZ 

h a 








s 


M 

K 


M 

B 


o 

CO 


6 

CO 


o 

CO 




CO 


ERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SYSTEM £ 
ESS THAN 50/DISTRICT 


3 


Q 


Hi rj 


a 


a 


5 > 

1 eo 






b 

2 

H 
co 

3 

2 

O 

H 
2 


GE 4TH GRADE TEST SCO 
CT 


GE 6TH GRADE TEST SCO 
CT 


GE 8TH GRADE TEST SCC 
CT 


GE GRADE SCHOOL TEST 
CT 


NTAGE OF 4TH GRADERS 
HAN 50/DISTRICT 


NTAGE OF 6TH GRADERS 
fHAN 50/DISTRICT 


NTAGE OF 8TH GRADERS 
THAN 50/DISTRICT 


GE 12TH GRADE SENIOR F 
SCORE/DISTRICT 


NTAGE OF SUB-STANDAR 
/DISTRICT 


RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR 
TO CRIME OF VIOLENCE/DISTRI' 


OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR 
OPERTY CRIME/DISTRICT 


RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR 
TO MINOR CRIMES/DISTRICT 


NTACE OF NON-HUSBAND 
[ES WHO HAD CHILDREN 1 
R LESS/DISTRICT 






Ul 
2 


2 I 


2 g 


2 E 

i> 52 


2 E 

> 52 


w " 
u co 
« co 

Ul UI 


ui 

O CO 
« CO 

w ui 


UI 

O CO 

(£ CO 

w ui 


a h 

Ul CO 
> Ul 


w CO 
Ul 2 




u> J O 

a s q 

w < J 






M 


< a 


< 5 


< D 


< D 


ft. •J 


ft. J 


Cv, -1 


u. J 


<: H 


ft. D 


ft. u. 




• 


1618 


• 

-C.8CG 


-C.596 


-0.4V7 


-C.644 


0.962 


C.258 


0.956 


1.150 


- 1.682 


0.884 


-0.66 4 


0.110 


-0.779 


-0.631 






1619 


C.*>15 


0.2O4 


-CO* J 


-0.138 


0.4C5 


-O.53o 


-0.775 


0.112 


0.193 


-0.7d0 


-0.664 


-C.lbl 


-0.5 2C 


-0.933 






1620 


CO IS 


U . <^ 4 


0.1b2 


C.216 


0.42<: 


-C.42 1 


-C.39C 


-O.039 


C.497 


-0.710 


-0.359 


-C.776 


-0.2 58 


-0.682 




- 


1621 


-<■ .256 


-0.52 9 


">.271 


-r.^o 7 


C.355 


0.431 


-0.775 


C.151 


0.09C 


-0. 59a 


-0.6o4 


-0.635 


-C.779 


-0.935 






1022 


-r.7CS 


-?.19c 


-0.49 7 


-C.7D3 


f'.72b 


-( .00 2 


^.142 

-C .45 6 


0.715 


C.5^4 
T.717 


-C.273 

-C. 35 3 


-0.250 
"0.C32 


-0.236 

-C,54'j 


-0.426 
-75. 168 


-0.483 

-0.HC4 






162J 


0.C 1 5 


-".26 3 


C.lo2 


~oTn*~ 


C^Zb 


~ s;i5< 






1624 


0.1 97 


C.27J 


.-,. r. / 


0.2(16 


0.0V5 


-1 .299 


C.379 


0.005 


0.d9C 


-0.50 3 


-J. 09 8 


-0.580 


-0.184 


-0.289 




- 


162 5 


C.3 7o 


0.413 


C.IC7 


0. 35 7 


0.095 


-0.95 3 


-C.7 7 5 


-0.542 


O.60O 


0.070 


-0.664 


-0.171 


0.097 


0.266 






1626 


-0.3*7 


C.C 14 


1 . 326 


-0.2 7 9 


0.44 2 


(.• . 1 b * 


".091 


0.663 


0.138 


-C .534 


-0.49 7 


'-O.H38 


-0.560 


-0.648 






1627 


C.t* 31 


I.0o9 


C.'*35 


1.06 3 


-0.322 


-o .o2 ; 


-C.67 7 


-0.517 


C.883 


-O.7o3 


-0.664 


-O.dln 


-0.629 


-0.940 






1626 


0.55/ 


1.269 


1.195 

"T.7it 


I.C6 3 

_ r.55i 


C.lf 6 
-0.503 


-0.d2 7 

-0.90 3" 


-■^.775 

-0.544 


-0.301 
-0.517 


I. CO 7 
0.855 


-0.7d0 
-C633 


-0.OO 4 
- n .664 


-0.840 
-C.352 


-0.693 
-C.69S 


-0.97V 

-0.911 






"1629 


1.193 


~T79l6 






1630 


1.193 


0.936 


C . 5"»6 


0.56 9 


-1.2 1-6 


-0.521 


-0.7 7 5 


-0.637 


0.573 


-C.760 


-0.664 


-0.229 


-C. 779 


-0.019 






1631 


1.3 74 


2.202 


i.Jo9 


1. 769 


-C.30 8 


-l.i: 4 


-0.7 7 5 


-0.8d7 


0.724 


-C.7o r ' 


-0.OO 4 


-0.ai3 


-0.678 


-1.198 






1632 


^ .t> 31 


1.735 


1.' 40 


1.275 


-0.6 lO 


-1.091 


-0.7 7 5 


-C.752 


C.9 8 6 


-C.611 


-0.66 4 


-0.537 


-C.73C 


-0.964 




- 


1633 


C.ri5 


1.735 


C.02C 


0.85 1 


C.262 


-0 .676 


-0.342 


-0.C59 


0.697 


-C.24C 


-0.664 


-0.31 5 


-C.530 


-0.837 






1634 


l.b2 i 


2.2^ 

r.6M 


l.d0 9 
-=r.TTT 


1.931 


-C.!159 


-1.299 
'0.25 3 


-0.775 

-3.775 


-0.9"0 

0.414 


1.441 
0.817 


-0.711 
CO 31 


- . 66 4 
-0.353 


-0.21 1 
~1.01B 


-0.779 

"0.202 


-1.153 
0.364 






1635 


- r, . 5 2 3 


~C.11B 


0.962 






loO 


-3.6 9t 


-3.65 9 


-•i.lZl 


- 4 . (. 9 3 


-<;.J72 


-1 .29 i 


-r .775 


-1.426 


- l.oo2 


0.2^1 


-0.b5 4 


-1.105 


-0.779 


-C. 79o 




— - 


16 41 


1.555 


-0.263 


-4.U1 


-0.238 


-0.555 


0.776 


-0.7 75 


-1 .-.2o 


-1.682 


- r .6o2 


-".273 


-f .613 


-C.677 


0.010 






164^ 


1.374 


- 3.b5* 


-4.U1 


-0.13 8 


-0.555 


-1.299 


-' .775 


-1.H20 


O.o 7 


-C.7b0 


-0.66 4 


-C.tl5 


- r '.663 


-0.223 






1643 


-3.o9fc 


0.337 


1.260. 


1.981 


-2.07<: 


-I .299 


-f..77 5 


-1.426 


1.2 r 


-0. ?o0 


-0.56 4 


-1.00 5 


-C.779 


-1.146 






1044 
l043 


- ..d9' 

- 3 .o it 


-0.729 
^C;52V 


- 1 . 1 1 1 


-1.^56 


0.891 


I; .682 


1.235 
--.775 


l.lbl 

-1.4 26 


-0.986 
'-1.6-8 2 


1.52o 
-C. 179 


1.9^9 
"■" t!.354 


2.975 
"~ 0.525~ 


3.063 

-T-.159 


2.252 
1.465 






-C. /I/ 


— n.U'l* 


-2.072 


T.31 4 






1646 


-3.69b 


-3.b5 » 


-4.121 


-4.': 9 3 


-2.) 72 


-1 .299 


-G.775 


-1.426 


-1.662 


-C .754 


-0.O64 


1.5b3 


-0.439 


1.233 






1647 


-3.o9b 


-1.195 


-4.121 


-1.2o8 


-2.072 


1.614 


- r. . 7 7 5 


-1.-.26 


- 1.682 


-0.78 


-0.-.23 


O.o34 


-0.399 


-0.735 






164d 


- 1.162 


- ( . '•> 2 9 


-1.54C 


- 1.4)9 


0.962 


.).5o i 


2.192 


1. 396 


-0.462 


2.264 


2.179 


1.132 


2.965 


J. 875 






1049 


-•..9 31 


-C.ijJ 


-i..3o7 


-<:.2id 


C.-V62 


.oh 7 


1.3)2 


0.749 


1.517 


1.633 


0.634 


0.521 


2.126 


1.810 






1&51 

[o5T 


t.2*r 


-5.d59 

^C.1»IT 


2.522 

"r.r.7 


I. <J4 C 

- C. 2 ] o 


-0.555 
11.41 Q 


-I .299 

-0.2:; 


-0.77 5 
-0.77 5 


-1.426 
0.273 


-1.682 
0.352 


-0. 7dC 
-C.78C 


-0.66 4 
0.09 4 


-1.115 
-0.245 


-C.226 

-0.3d0 


0.151 
-0.764 










1652 


( .40b 


-( .263 


C.*9l 


•^.85 1 


0.095 


l .56 5 


-C.45 9 


-0.284 


. 5 6 


-0.596 


-0.654 


-1.00 5 


-0.474 


-0.226 






1&53 


-C.r 75 


-C . 329 


(.271 


- (. . Co 7 


0.507 


C . 1 G 2 


-C.t j6 


C.2b7 


0.242 


-0.3^6 


-O.T72 


-0.016 


-0.104 


-0.375 






lt>54 


- r .437 


' .214 


-'•.442 


-O.Oo 7 


0.io2 


^.116 


0.VJ6 


0.619 


« .152 


1.' 65 


-L. 06t 


P.*5»J 


1.1 33 


-0.158 




■ 


1655 


-l.«71 


-l.co2 


-1..-.6 


-1.126 


0.8o0 


1.154 


0.998 


1 . 9 4 


-0.124 


0.o91 


0.59 5 


0.57 7 


0.989 


0.371 






1656 

lo57 


-1.071 


- 1.2o2 


-l.il 1 


-1.4 ;9 


r.37 1 


I.j7d 
— G.776 " 


1.6l 1 

~r.739 


1.561 
~ 0.677 


- 1 . -. 4 1 
~GV57J 


1. 320 


1.203 


1.490 


0.6 96 


1.743 






-1.524 


- ' . ti 2 


-T .-3^7" 


- C • 0-»t 


~ 0.9 o2" 


J. 29 5 


2 • d6 


3.121 


1.7"l 


0. 946 






Ie5d 


-1.162 


-1.129 


-1.406 


-1.33b 


0.907 


1.419 


2.293 


1.534 


-0.7 19 


C.090 


0. 566 


. 'J 9 1 


-0.2C4 


1.782 






1659 


-1.071 


-r.995 


-w.b2 7 


-C.914 


0.962 


1.248 


0.95 6 


1.20 3 


-C.151 


O.25o 


2.08 5 


0.602 


O.910 


0.818 






16o0 


- l.r 71 


- 1. 1 )•> 


-1.37o 


-1.2o8 


0.962 


1.425 


l.b2 1 


1.437 


-0.386 


1.675 


2. -.67 


-C.402 


C.779 


1.429 






1661 


-1.0 7 1 


-1.262 


-1.15o 


-1.268 


0.752 


1.382 


1.697 


1.484 


-1.151 


0.203 


-0.041 


-C224 


-0.451 


0.914 





88 



In this analysis, as the percentages, ratios, and averages increased, the z-score also 
increased. To determine the "rank" of each district with respect to each district, one must 
consider whether an increase in rate (percentage or average) per district is "good" or "bad." 

Take the variable "percentage of 4th graders scoring less than 50 percent on their 
reading comprehension exam per district," for example. As this percentage increases, the 
z-score also increases. However, as this percentage increases, the situation (in this case 
educational achievement) becomes worse . 

When the variable "average grade school test score per district" increases, however, 
the z-score also increases, but the situation (educational achievement) improves. 

Some variables, on the other hand, would be very difficult to rank since "goodness" 
or "badness" would become extremely subjective. The variable "the percentage of families 
per district with children who are 18 years old or less" is a typical variable that would be 
difficult to rank. 

It should be pointed out that the z-score method was utilized merely as a tool for de- 
termining the extent and kind of social problems that have occurred by enumeration district, 
but is incapable of delineating specific relationships for these same enumeration districts. 

Inspection of Table 5 reveals that the enumeration districts 1644 and 1655 through 1661 
have consistently high z-score values for the following variables: percentage of overcrowded 
housing units per district; the percentage of units occupied by Black families per district; the 
percentage of female-headed families per district; the ratio of Black average housing value and 
rent to the total average housing value and rent per district; the percentage of low school scores; 
the percentage of substandard housing per district; criminal behavior rates; and the percentage 
of non-husband-wife families with children. In addition, these same enumeration districts have 
consistently low values for the following variables: relative housing value per district; the 
average housing score per district; and average grade school test grade per district. 



89 



As previously stated, these z-score values will increase as the percentages, rates, and 
averages of the phenomenon being measured increase. Careful investigation of Table 5 will 
also reveal that several other enumeration districts also had recorded high z-score values in 
some of the aforementioned variables. Their results, however, were not as consistent as those 
of enumeration districts 1644 and 1655 through 1661. 

Multiple Regression Analysis 

Multiple regression analysis is a statistical procedure which provides equations that help 
define linear relationships between one dependent variable and one or more independent variables. 
In essence, it provides an estimate of the future by means of a regression equation which is the 
equation of a regression line. This line does not in reality regress from anything. It is simply 
a line (assumed here to be a straight line) that best expresses the trend of points on a scattergram 
(see Appendix for scattergrams relating to housing quality). To use multiple regression analysis, 
two assumptions must be made. First, it is necessary to assume that the relationship between the 
dependent variable (social indicator) and each of the independent variables is linear. Secondly, 
it is necessary to consider the independent variables as unrelated to each other. 

With respect to this second assumption, a set of independent variables was drawn up for each 
social indicator to be analyzed, and the correlation matrix of the variables was inspected. For each 
social indicator to be analyzed, a list of potential independent variables was determined by way of 
their relatively high correlation with the social indicator (i.e., r = + .5 or better). New sub-lists 
were then developed by combining these same independent variables which had low degrees of 
association (i.e., r = +_ .5 or less) with each other. The relationship between the social indicators 
and the independent variables may be expressed by the formula: 

Y = B 1 X 1 + B 2 X 2 ...B N X N +C 
where: 

Y = the dependent variable (social indicator) 



90 



X 1 = the i'th independent variable 

B - = the i'th coefficient 

C = a constant 

N = the total number 

As in simple correlations, in order to determine the relationship between the dependent 
variable (social indicator) and the set of independent variables, the multiple correlation coeffi- 
cient is squared and may be expressed as r , 

Table 6 was prepared depicting the results of the multiple regression analyses that were 
performed on this study's data. 

In reference to this table, it should be emphasized that these equations are useful prin- 
cipally as tools for detecting and predicting the extent of some social problem for some future 
date . For instance , the multiple regression equation enables the estimation of some future value 
for a variable or social indicator. This may be achieved through the application and utilization 
of some given independent variables that are directly measurable in the present. In addition, if the 
values of the independent variables may be predicted for some future date, the future values of the 
dependent variable may also be estimated by using the multiple regression equations. 



91 



Table 6 



RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS 



(1) Y = PERCENTAGES OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS PER DISTRICT 



XI 
X2 
X3 



XI 
X2 
X3 



VARIABLES 

RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO 

PROPERTY CRIME PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED- SEPARATED 

PERSONS PER DISTRICT 

DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 



VALUES DERIVED 



PERCENTAGE OF OCCUPIED UNITS "BLACK 

OCCUPIED PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED- SEPARATED 

PERSONS PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF 4TH GRADERS SCORING LESS 

THAN 50 PER DISTRICT 



Bl = 


0.79334 


B2 = 


0.34021 


B3 = 


0.36833 


C 


-2.97908 


r2 = 


0.58764 


Bl = 


0.11998 


B2 = 


0.37071 


B3 = 


0.05795 


C 


-3.05456 


r 2 = 


0.62397 



92 



Table 6 



(Continued) 



XI 
X2 
X3 



XI 

X2 
X3 



XI 
X2 
X3 



XI 
X2 
X3 



PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED- SEPARATED 

PERSONS PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF OF 4TH GRADERS SCORING LESS 

THAN 50 PER DISTRICT 

DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 



AVERAGE 4TH GRADE READING COMPREHENSION 
TEST SCORE PER DISTRICT 
DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED-SEPARATED 
PERSONS PER DISTRICT 



AVERAGE 4TH GRADE READING COMPREHENSION 

TEST SCORE PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DR/ORCED- SEPARATED 

PERSONS PER DISTRICT 

DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 



RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO 

PROPERTY CRIME 

PERCENTAGE OF 4TH GRADERS SCORING LESS 

THAN 50 PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED-SEPARATED 

PERSONS PER DISTRICT 



Bl 


- 


0.51357 


B2 


— 


0.09178 


B3 


= 


0.44322 


C 




-7.05414 


r2 


ss 


0.52195 


Bl 




-0.41445 


B2 


= 


0.47605 


B3 


— 


0.27905 


C 




16.98303 


r2 


= 


0.64827 


Bl 


— 


-0.42655 


B2 


= 


0.48887 


B3 


= 


0.37884 


C 




17.49423 


r 2 


= 


0.68898 


Bl 


= 


0.77676 


B2 


= 


0.08593 


B3 


= 


0.34836 



93 



Table 6 
(Continued) 

C -6.54925 
r 2 = 0.61205 

(2) Y = RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO PROPERTY CRIMES PER DISTRICT 



XI 
X2 



XI 



XI 



AVERAGE 4TH GRADE READING COMPREHENSION 
TEST SCORE PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF DIVORCED-SEPARATED PERSONS 
PER DISTRICT 



PERCENTAGE OF HUSBAND-WIFE FAMILIES PER 
DISTRICT 



RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO 
MINOR CRIMES PER DISTRICT 



Bl = 


-0.21194 


B2 = 
C 


0.33383 
10.17169 


r 2 = 


0.47335 


Bl = 
C 


-0.36067 
34.88715 


r 2 = 


0.53618 


Bl = 
C 


0.38887 
2.22066 


r 2 = 


0.54713 



94 



Table 6 
(Continued) 

(3) Y = RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO CRIMES OF VIOLENCE PER DISTRICT 



XI 
X2 
X3 



XI 

X2 
X3 



XI 

X2 
X3 



AVERAGE 4TH GRADE TEST SCORE PER DISTRICT 
DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED-SEPARATED 
MALES PER DISTRICT 



AVERAGE 4TH GRADE READING COMPREHENSION 
TEST SCORE PER DISTRICT 
DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED-SEPARATED 
PERSONS PER DISTRICT 



RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO 
PROPERTY CRIME PER DISTRICT 
DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED-SEPARATED 
PERSONS PER DISTRICT 



Bl = -0.09694 
B2 = 0.20623 

B3 = 0.14445 
C 2.80191 

r 2 = 0.67323 



Bl = 
B2 = 


-0.11046 
0.19271 


B3 = 
C 


0.13472 
3.78263 


r 2 = 


0.67964 


Bl = 
B2 = 


0.20669 
0.18954 


B3 = 
C 


0.11658 
-1.51970 


r 2 = 


0.61205 



95 



Table 6 
(Continued) 

(4) Y = RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO MINOR CRIMES PER DISTRICT 



XI 
X2 
X3 



RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO 

PROPERTY CRIME PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED- SEPARATED 

PERSONS PER DISTRICT 

DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 



Bl = 0.80299 



B2 = 
B3 = 
C 



0.68013 

0.73887 

■6.86570 



r2 = 0.81509 



XI 

X2 
X3 



PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED- SEPARATED MALES 

PER DISTRICT 

DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 

AVERAGE 4TH GRADE READING COMPREHENSION TEST 

SCORE PER DISTRICT 



Bl = 0.69211 
B2 = 0.97077 

B3 = -0.25238 
C 4.51072 

r 2 = 0.71896 



XI = PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DIVORCED- SEPARATED 

PERSONS PER DISTRICT 
X2 = DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 
X3 = AVERAGE 4TH GRADE READING COMPREHENSION TEST 

SCORE PER DISTRICT 



Bl = 

B2 = 

B3 = 
C 



0.79830 
0.83292 

■0.30275 
7.78757 



r 2 = 0.78392 



96 



Table 6 
(Continued) 

(5) Y = PERCENTAGE OF 4TH GRADERS SCORING LESS THAN 50 PER DISTRICT 



XI 
X2 



XI 
X2 



XI 
X2 



XI 
X2 



PERCENTAGE UNITS WITH 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS 
PER ROOM PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITH MEMBERS WHO ARE 
LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD PER DISTRICT 



PERCENTAGE OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS 
PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITH MEMBERS WHO ARE 
LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD PER DISTRICT 



RELATIVE HOUSING VALUE PER DISTRICT 
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITH MEMBERS WHO ARE 
LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD PER DISTRICT 



RATIO OF BLACK HOUSING VALUE TO TOTAL AVERAGE 
VALUE PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WITH MEMBERS WHO ARE 
LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD PER DISTRICT 



Bl 


= 


1.84754 


B2 
C 


= 


0.66703 
21.58388 


r2 


— 


0.35788 


Bl 


— 


1.96376 


B2 
C 


= 


0.84980 
12.77689 


r2 


- 


0.48353 


Bl 


-. 


-20.87166 


B2 
C 


— 


0.59727 
43.15654 


r2 


= 


0.51434 


Bl 


— 


27.79227 


B2 
C 


= 


0.71908 
22.19007 



97 



Table 6 
(Continued) 



r 2 = 0.42424 



(6) Y = AVERAGE 4TH GRADE READING COMPREHENSION TEST SCORE PER DISTRICT 



XI 
X2 



XI 
X2 



RATIO OF BLACK HOUSING VALUE TO TOTAL AVERAGE 
VALUE PER DISTRICT 

RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO PROPERTY 
CRIME PER DISTRICT 



RELATIVE HOUSING VALUE PER DISTRICT 

RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO PROPERTY 

CRIMES PER DISTRICT 



Bl = -9.83447 

B2 = -0.84458 
C -47.64643 

r 2 = 0.53856 



Bl 


= 


6 


.07180 


B2 


— 


-0 


.83288 


C 




42 


.67491 


r 2 


= 


0. 


555151 



Y = DEATH RATE PER 1,000 PER DISTRICT 



XI 
X2 



RATE OF UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR RELATIVE TO MINOR 

CRIMES PER DISTRICT 

PERCENTAGE OF STRUCTURES WITH 10+ UNITS PER 

DISTRICT 



Bl = 0.26667 

B2 = -0.04339 
C 4.81349 



98 



Table 6 
(Continued) 



r 2 = 0.51504 



NOTE: AS EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY, THE BASIC FORMULA FOR WHICH THE RESULTING VALUES 
ARE REPRESENTED HERE IS: Y = B ± X ± + B 2 X 2 - B N X N + C. THE VALUE OF r 2 
DEPICTS THE STRENGTH OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN Y (EQUALS SUBSTANDARD 
HOUSING) AND X (THE OTHER VARIABLE DEPICTED), i.e., THE HIGHER X 2 , THE STRONGER 
THE RELATIONSHIP. 



99 



Multiple regression analysis, it should also be noted, is an even more useful tool when 
the data is available at regularly spaced time intervals. By using data from different years, 
for example, impacts cannot only be traced, but cause-effect relationships may also be assigned 
among the variables. In reference to the determination of the multiple regression equations 
which evolved in this study (see Table 6) , a much larger number of equations was derived by 
using the percentage of substandard housing units per district as the dependent variable than 
for any other dependent variable. As previously mentioned, this variable was derived in 1972. 

From inspection of the multiple regression equations that have the percentage of sub- 
standard housing per enumeration district as the dependent variable, it may be seen that there 
are six combinations of variables which meet the criteria previously set up for defining sets of 
dependent variables . Each of the six sets contains a variable measuring family stability , four 
contain the death rate variable, and five contain an educational achievement variable. 

Again it should be noted that the base year for that dependent variable (i.e., the per- 
centage of substandard housing units per enumeration district) was 1972 while the base year 
for all the other variables was 1970. Also, more regression equations were found using the 
percentage of substandard housing per district as the dependent variable than were found using 
any other variable for the dependent variable. The hypothesis may be made here that housing 
condition is a symptomatic variable (i.e., having the characteristics of a particular disease but 
arising from another cause) , and as such is suitable for prediction using multiple regression 
analysis. Housing quality might show up as a symptomatic variable if housing maintenance 
took relatively low priority to people with marital problems, health problems, and educational 
problems (which might be related to socialization problems) . 

These hypotheses cannot be totally supported by the existing data, although they are 
indicated. Testing these hypotheses should perhaps be the goal of some future study. 

Only one set of two variables met the criteria for independent variables in the regression 
equation using the rate of unlawful behavior relative to property crime as the dependent variable 
The two variables were the average fourth grade reading comprehension test scores per district, 



100 



and the percentage of divorced or separated men per district. This would indicate that broken 
families and educational achievement are related to criminal behavior involving property crimes. 
Strong relationships were also found between rates of unlawful behavior relative to property 
crime and the percentage of husband-wife families per district (a negative relationship which 
is in agreement with the first relationship) , and minor crimes. 

Rates of unlawful behavior relative to both crimes of violence and minor crimes were found 
to be associated with three variables in each set. The death rate was found in each equation, as 
was a variable dealing with broken homes . A variable measuring educational achievment was found 
in two of the three equations for both the unlawful behavior relating to both crimes of violence and 
minor crimes. These types of crime, as the regression analysis points out, seem to be related to 
broken homes, poor health and low educational achievement. 

In addition there were four regression equations formed using the percentage of students per 
district scoring less than 50 percent on their fourth grade reading comprehension test. Each equa- 
tion had an independent variable which measured the presence of household members who were under 
eighteen years of age. In three of the equations, the other independent variable measured some as- 
pect of housing quality. The fourth equation had a variable (i.e., the ratio of the average Black 
housing value to the average housing value per district) which was designed to measure a Black 
enclave. These equations indicate that an ethnic enclave or the presence of families with children 
coupled with poor residential quality is associated with a large proportion of the students doing 
very poorly in school. 

Low average school achievement .as the analysis indicates, seems to relate to both the presence 
of an ethnic enclave and unlawful behavior (relative to property crime) or low housing value and 
criminal behavior (relative to property crime). A high death rate, on the other hand, is related 
to both unlawful behavior (relative to minor crimes) and high density living. 

In conclusion, then, it cannot be emphasized enough that a high degree of inter- relatedness 
exists between and among the variables depicting social problems. Social indicators which were 
used as dependent variables in the beginning of the analysis, for example, show up again and a- 
gain as independent variables in the latter portions of the analysis. 



101 



Factor Analysis 

Factor analysis is a basic statistical technique whereby a large number of operational 
indices or variables is reduced to a smaller, more inclusive set of conceptual variables. Be- 
sides allowing for the simpler interpretation and description of the total available information, 
factor analysis also points out those basic underlying structural conditions that affect the 
phenomena (social well-being) being measured. To accomplish this, a set of factors represent- 
ing common patterns of variability must be developed. These factors must be interpreted by 
the factor weightings on the various variables. Factor scores for specific districts may then 
be derived and analyzed. 

Underlying the use of factor analysis is the idea that a large number of inter-correlated 
variables may be due to one or more basic underlying factors. 

The use of factor analysis in spatial studies is relatively new , and its use in the defini- 
tion of social problems is even newer. 

Factor analysis was used by Wendell Bell, Eshref Shevky, and Marianne Williams to test 
three conceptual variables that could delimit the reasons for residential locations by persons, 
families, and households. To accomplish this, they conducted a social space analysis of the 
populations of Los Angeles and San Francisco. 56 

In their analysis they derived three classifications which were based on a set of postulates 
which concerned those basic social changes found in rapidly industrializing communities. They 
used variables in their analysis that would measure the impact of these social changes as effi- 
ciently and as effectively as possible . 

The three basic postulates with which they were concerned were: 

1. An industrialized society caused changes in the range and intensity of personal relations. 
This, in turn, resulted in the decreasing importance of usual production operations, and 
the increasing importance of management, clerical and professional occupations. The social 



102 



impact could be measured in terms of the increased occupational and educational 
characteristics of the population. 

2. As the functional activities of society became more specialized and differentiated, 
changes occurred in the characteristics of the social institutions. The institution 
most relevant to the social space analysis , the family , for example , is increasing- 
ly having divorced from itself the educational, counseling and nursing functions 

of our society. With that, the extended family is being replaced by a set of family 
types, differentiated both by size and the age of its members. 

3. An increasingly complex social system could support an increasingly diverse popu- 
lation. Many positions offered by the social system may be filled regardless of, or 
because of, different ethnic backgrounds. 

The three conceptual variables which evolved from these three postulates were: 

a. Socio-Economic Status, 

b. Family Status, and 

c. Ethnic Status. 

They determined that a person's choice of residential location is contingent upon these three 
basic underlying factors. 

Factorial Ecology 

Factor analysis, in the past, has been referred to as either a Factorial Ecology (as its 
theory is based on that of Human Ecology as expressed by Park and others at the University 
of Chicago School of Sociology) or Social Area Analysis (alluding to the use of a geographic 
area as the basic area for analysis). Because of the anticipated confusion of the term "Social 
Area Analysis" with a different type of urban analysis called Social Indicator Analysis, the 
term Factorial Ecology was used in this study. 






103 



The introduction of a broader spectrum of variables (i.e., census information as well as 
variables depicting social indicators) into the Factorial Ecology revealed that the hree basic 
factors , socio-economic status , family status , and ethnic status splintered into more specific 
factors which differentiate the underlying reasons for the residential location of persons, families, 
and households. Variables which describe ethnic characteristics point out the geographic concen- 
trations of specific nationalities and/or races. The ethnic group factor that evolves is referred 
to as ethnic status. The family status factor, too, might also be depicted by more than one fac- 
tor. While one factor might delineate family size, for example, another factor might point out 
family mobility. Both depict family status. 

A Factorial Ecology for the City of Gainesville 

Generating a factorial ecology is important for two major reasons. One, it aids in depic- 
ting those geographic areas that are spatially different; and, two, it points out the possible 
underlying reasons (i.e., socio-economic status, family status, and ethnic status) that areas 
are spatially different residentially . In this chapter, the two factor analyses that were performed 
shall be described. 

To insure that minimal distortion occurs in the results of the factor analysis, variables 
should not be used that are highly correlated. The most pertinent factor that was eliminated 
by this criteria was the variable "percentage of all Black occupied units per district." This 
variable highly correlated with the "percentage of units with 1.01 or more people per room 
per district" (r=0.918) and the "percentage of occupied units with a telephone per district" 
(r = 0.837). Both of these latter variables were more statistically important to the factor 
analysis than the "percentage of all Black occupied units per district." Consequently, the 
variables which described both socio-economic status and ethnic status can be represented 
by one factor, (see Table 7). 



104 



Table 7 



FACTORIAL ECOLOGY 



% Units with more than 1.01 people per room 

% Occupied Units with telephone 

% Units with members less than 18 years old 
not husband-wife families 

% Single family detached units 

% Husband- Wife families 

% Families with members less than 18 

Ratio of Black rent to total average 

Relative Housing value of all units 



FACTOR 1 
0.85069 
0.92241 

0.93263 



0.94368 

0.85480 
-0.72235 



FACTOR 2 



0.74634 



0.86981 



FACTOR 1 - Social Economic Status 6 Ethnic Status 
FACTOR 2 - Family Status 

The figures in this matrix represent the factor weights on the variables, or the correlation 
of coefficients between the factors and the variables. 



105 



Table 7 
(Continued) 
FACTOR MATRIX WITH SOCIAL PROBLEM VARIABLES INCLUDED 

% Units with more than 1.01 people per room 0.80950 

% Units occupied with telephone -0.93062 

% Single family detached units 

% Husband- Wife families -0.92489 

% Families with members less than 18 

Ratio of Black renter average rent to the total average rent 0.81687 

Relative housing value -0.72131 

Average 4th Grade test score -0.75353 

% of units found to be substandard 0.81961 

Crime of violence 0.82488 

Property crime 0.79132 

Minor crime 0.81940 

% of families with children that are not husband-wife 0.90983 



0.85598 



0.73882 



106 



It should be noted that a separate ethnic factor would have been generated by the analysis 
if an area existed in the city that contained either: 

1. a high concentration of relatively affluent Black households; or 

2. a high concentration of relatively poor White households which were isolated from 
areas with poor Black households . 

In this study no such areas apparently existed. 

If no racial , national , or religious discrimination existed in the city , no ethnic status 
factor could evolve from the analysis. If no residential segregation existed, then the percent- 
age of Black occupied households would theoretically have been relatively constant in each 
district, and correlations between the "percentage of Black occupied households per district" 
and the other variables would have been low. Neither was true for the City of Gainesville. 

With reference to the spatial differentiation of City of Gainesville enumeration districts, 
the two main underlying conceptual variables generated by this Factorial Ecology were socio- 
economic status and family status. What this essentially means is that although a Gainesville 
resident may have many personal and unique criteria in choosing his particular place of resi- 
dence, the two major constraints with which he and every other Gainesville resident must 
contend are his income and the presence of children in his household (see Table 7) . 

A Factorial Ecology Using the Social Indicators 

The Factorial Ecology as outlined above is a descriptive tool which deals with measures 
that are not value-oriented (i.e., it deals with variables which cannot be labeled as"gcod" or 
"bad"). For example, an area cannot be said to be better than another because (1) the average 
household income is higher, or (2) there are more children in the families, even if everything 
else is held constant. 

However, an area can be said to be worse off than another because it has more crime, 
more blighted structures , more ill health, or proportionately more children tend to do badly 



107 



in school. These may be considered value-oriented variables or social indicators in that they 
measure the presence of a social problem. When these variables are applied to specific geo- 
graphic areas and the extent of the problem is uncovered, labels of "better off" or worse off" 
then may be applied. 

In this study a factorial ecology or factor analysis was performed utilizing both value- 
oriented (social indicators) and non-value oriented variables. The same two underlying factors 
were again generated: family status (as indicated by variables delineating both the presence 
of children in the household , and the presence of single family dwellings in an area) and socio- 
economic status factor (as indicated by variables which pointed out the presence of most of the 

social problems educational achievement, housing quality, and unlawful behavior the 

presence of broken homes with children, and the presence of overcrowded households). 

An orthogonal solution was specified in the two above-mentioned factor analyses. An 
orthogonal solution produces factors that are mutually independent (i.e., no correlation exists 
between them). Factor analyses were executed specifying oblique rotation of factors. In oblique 
rotation, which is more valuable when larger amounts of information are available, some inter- 
correlation is permitted among the derived factors. In addition to the socio-economic status and 

family status factors, oblique rotation produced a third factor a substandard housing factor 

which had only one variable weighting which was significant: the "percentage of substandard 
housing units per district." Consequently, this third factor did not provide much useful infor- 
mation, and an orthogonal rotation of the factors was utilized. The information provided by this 
third factor could in fact be adequately presented by the simple inspection of the map depicting 
the percentage of substandard housing per district. 

In order to provide more basic and useful information with respect to the major underlying 
factors affecting residential location, orthogonal rotation, which allows for the extraction of mu- 
tually non-correlated factors, was necessitated. With this type of rotation, the conclusion could 
be made that the family status factor was independent of the socio-economic status factor. Since 
the family status factor was not correlated with the socio-economic status factor, it can be stated 
that areas with households may experience social pathology whether children are present or not, 
but a larger degree of social pathology is likely to occur if the households are Black, in poverty, 
overcrowded, or have experienced divorce, desertion, separation, or death of one or both parents, 



108 



The Factor Score 

The factor score measures problems relative to the variables included in this analysis. It 
is a mathematical composite of a common variance found in the data. Those variables whose var- 
iance is similar to the common variance of the factor can be determined by inspection of the factor 
weights . 

The theoretical dimensions associated with the factor score are derived in a manner very 
similar to that of multiple regression analysis. Factor score coefficients are derived from the fac- 
tor weights. These factor score coefficients are similar to the regression coefficient derived for 
multiple regression analysis. The factor score for each enumeration district is calculated by the 
formula: 

f ik =F il' z lk +F i2* z 2k + F i3 * z 3k"" F in " z nk 
where 

f*i c = the factor score for the i'th factor and the k'th enumeration district 

F^ = the factor score coefficient for the i'th factor and the j'th variable 

Z 4j= the z-score for the j'th variable and the k'th enumeration district 

and 

n = the total number of variables used in the analysis 

Variables depicting socio-economic status, ethnic status, and social problems all weighed 
heavily on the first factor. The factor score gives a single measure of all three of these concepts. 
A higher factor score corresponds to a higher degree of social problems, a higher concentration 



109 



of Black households, and a lower socio-economic status for the enumeration district in question. 

The value presented by the factor score is only as valid and as comprehensive as the 
data from which it is derived. As has already been stated, some degree of comprehensiveness 
was sacrificed in the interest of validity. If it was not very certain that a variable was a valid 
measure of the concept of the variable chosen to be measured, or if there were too few events 
measured in the variable for the base year to provide a good statistical measure, the variable 
was not used. 

The value for each enumeration district represents an average for that entire area. The 
value for any enumeration district is valid if the enumeration district is homogeneous relative to 
the measure of the variables used in the factor analysis. The homogeneity of housing quality, for 
example, for some of the enumeration districts may be tested by inspection of the block in the 
housing report. It may be seen here that housing quality varies greatly within that same enumera- 
tion district. This is most evident within enumeration districts 1655 and 1656, where a single pocket 
of poor housing overlaps a portion of those two districts but fills enumeration district 1657. The 
balance of enumeration districts 1655 and 1656 meanwhile are vacant or contain adequate housing, 
(see Appendix MapA-1). 

Consequently , it should not be assumed that the factor score will describe an individual house- 
hold or dwelling unit within each enumeration district, but will point out a general average. In con- 
clusion, the factor score should not be used as an absolute ranking device, but instead as a tool which 
provides for a general comparison of different areas within the City. 



110 



The first factor which evolved (Factor I), socio-economic status, accounted for 61.5% of 
the variability of all the variables used in the analysis. This would indicate that nearly two- 
thirds of the difference between enumeration districts can be accounted for by this factor. Socio- 
economic status therefore may be considered the major constraint to residential location. 

Because all the variables depicting social pathology were linked to this factor, socio-economic 
status was used as the major quality of life factor (Factor I) and was consequently given factor 
scores to delineate the distribution of enumeration districts with respect to that same factor. 

Since the factor may be used as an objective means of ranking the E.D.'s relative to the 
presence of social problems, it was applied to all the districts existing within the City of Gaines- 
ville. The following table (8) and map (22) show those areas with increasing quality of life 
characteristics. It should be noted that this ranking merely indicates a distribution regarding 
just the social, economic, and environmental variables which were measured with respect to this 
particular study. The addition of more information or the deletion of existing information, or 
the use of different statistical techniques could affect, even dramatically, this particular ranking. 



Ill 



Table 8 
FACTOR SCORES BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

Enumeration District Factor Score Enumeration District Factor Score 



1644 2.256 1640 -.376 

1657 2.003 1624 -.456 

1648 1.808 1652 -.523 

1660 1.475 1642 -.533 
1656 1.440 1626 -.610 

1649 1.324 1623 -.613 

1658 1.260 1643 -.626 

1661 1.209 1619 -.662 

1646 1.061 1641 -.671 

1645 1.000 1630 -.704 

1659 0.933 1651 -.732 
1655 .911 1633 -.743 
1635 .266 1620 -.748 
1654 .257 1621 -.839 

1647 .112 1634 -.922 
1653 -.088 1632 -.976 
1625 -.095 1628 -.993 

1650 -.170 1629 -1.011 
1622 -.170 1627 -1.028 
1618 -.208 1631 -1.148 



112 



MAP 22 

AREAS OF 
SOCIAL WELL- BEING 

BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA -1970 



GAINESVILLE 
MUN1C IPAL 
AIRPORT 



a aa mi 



BBBtiBfiBBBBBBBBBBBBaBBBBaeBBBaBBBBBBBBaBBBB 39TH AVE. B866B8BB6B6B6B6BBSB6BSBaBB86SBBB8BBBBB6e6)B8U866fl8B6BB8BBeB6BB6BBBB6e6BG6BB666Bfi6flB686BBB6B6eBBeaBBBBB 



llll* I in 

HBMI I • 

a *Mi 



;.<??&: 



eeBBSEBBBSBfCBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBS * 



Mt*TTTT*ii*aitti'^?it 



:::g:«?i:; : 



1*4+ III 
.BBBBeBBBItBBBBBBBBISfiBBBBfiBBBefiBBBBBBBBBBaaafifiBaiBBBeBBBBBeeBCBBMBBBBIlfietieibe 



%»: 



.8 1627. 



■ BBB a 

bb ..a 

ana 

bgbbbbbbb 16th 



Bfi(ld«blt|iBIieBI)BaBBBBf)66fie6BBBaBBBeB66B6Bi)fiBfi&BBBBaBBBaBI6B66B6BB6b8fie6eB6eBBeefiBfieB6iJ6BBetBEllJfie 



*H* 



:>e2G::::::::::::g:;: :::;::;::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::: ::::::V"*^^^i"**i**^2s ,;s; 



bbUHHIibHHHbdBeababii»BH^H8^MHliHiHbHbHbBH" Sth'SSJ 



:i:::::::: 



a i a 

8888.. B b 

anas.. a 

6HU629 B 

BIBB B 

IBBHKBlbBBBIBBBBBRUNi VERSl W 



: :u§A9::s 



■aaaaaaaai 
... — —a*Baai 

.... IS 3 ?. .- .*>■ ■•■#■!&•* a Kim 

e tan iiih n attain 

• ifi „ • »♦ Baaaaaaiaaaaifeaui 

. l'«*V. . *, ,,.■:,: ).,ij ■ J( ^■•■■••■■■••■L ■■•• 

ujuu" n '"" i "OCOoa b 

0GGU'l63Si,C0L*bfebHBbebbBHbb 

uuuougouulcu e 66c«bdbbe __. 
BBBBBaMeaeaaBaeBBBeBBBBBBBBBBeeBBBBeeeBBeBBBeBB 



Hbi« ...♦♦ 

BbBd ***** 

■a ease ***** 

aa eeee »♦♦♦♦ 

aa bhbb ***** 

bidbei 
issooliaoehrtB 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 



BHdb *>u6bb» aaaaai 
a aaaaaa 

BULGUGGUGUG I1IUI 

BOOi " 

bug I647..U aiaaaaa 

BUCQUUUL'JI- lllllll 
BUULUULLUU ■■■•■ ti 

BUUUUOGOUG 

BGOGUG BOB 

BuOBBBB*** 

BOB 

BB*: 



&?} 



aaaaaaa 
aaaiaaaaa 
aaaaaaaaaaa 
aaaaaaaaaaaia 
eaaaaaiaaiar- 
■«••■■■■••• 
aaaiaaaaa 
aaaaaiaaa 
■aaaaaaaa 
aaaaaaaaa 



►♦♦ilicAMflSfiBseeeaaBeeeeeaee 

*».L;?>.pVob88aBBeba«ee6e8d8*je 
***b**BbbbBdbeMebb89tSbrfet(t+e6 e 
.♦.fc.tb j^s^btf^binebb'dcietdes eeeeaeaeeaeeeBeBeeeaBbeBeeea 

»»*b*Bo6BBBdBBdd&'dde6bbddBdd dd66eHd66d6B6Bt6dddbbbby6666 
*»*H6baMatb--'- 1 ^Hh,H-iPHyybHM-b dbderibbb'.'nc-ie* bbabb^dbdeb66S 
• **Bdbd./«6dl656idde6B6a6dBbd 66b666bbtjbddddedebbb-bb6B668d 
»**B8e-isbB03b«bbbbb6eeeB68l>U e«Be6d«eot"bdbb6bbt«bbbbB66efee 
betfc8bi3Bbbbt)bdubeBBbbtiHbbHHaH8bbbiribuet ""--i-i-Tir-Mbiopbaccb'- 
'iaiotodbbb 3boob6bbbbt-,bbbibbdbbbbo«oetjbbbdbbb-Hbbr-bbbbbaB 

***eaaBBdJni.c JBc^HH^Hbyhni i,t lO ye^MBpyyH6yt'ji)h^tib«B«efeieee«« 
♦**tea6bbd38o obBBb 8bb &8B«eB88Beet>eeb88 60*? b-r-i- -.-->-'— see beb8e 

*»BBBlB68*dbB 3'663e6Bdddbdodd'3oddnbddHde6dfeB6BbBbbeB6b8B6bee 

♦ BBaaaBBBdBBb JOBeseeaeeeeeeaee iss5 6BBe&ee6ebee6666866eee66 
***»»»••»»**• *BaaaaBGbbd8bb dBBB&Bbdb^tobbbeetr-BcceeBBee^Bbbtebebbbbbebeee 
»*••*• . ...... .HiiiibMHHob db«eddoddBBt8b8b888BeeeeeeeBe-ddt5b^bbH dfaC i 0b nee 

,,♦,.,,,. ♦ •♦»8ll6S7l6BddduG ddedddbaaabddbdbbbabHdbddeudbbbbtdbdbHtffcbeeeee 
......... ...UtiititBedddbb BB86666dB6£6ddddBtBBtedbbd'.a686bbbdfc'b8BfcbBaeee 

Baa6aflBB6BBfiBSGB6BaeG6S6B6fi6ia8aa6BB6aafiBGBBB66B6B6BBBaeaea66666efi6BB6BeE6eBBBaBBB6Be 

8BBl64 9 886Bb6fluu l .' 1 jL^uuL.ubddr^ddobfedddobb«r,oridbdnbL.u«dbB6B66 
b866BB«oB6bb UJULiLPUUUUUuuB*Bb88^bbo8BlJbbHbbbbbdbdB8b 8888888868 
bsflb iXJUuOu0Li,u0bd6ddau3dadbdttBBbfed:)ddddd9dybbb«BB866a 

b9* JuauOOJGGaGJuJ0B6686B8BJ66BbBB=toebBddbr*adbdb-'He'add' | Xf6e 
.._ .8BB UuiJUu »■.!.'. ■.Uuuui,BBdB-3HBddb8dBdo-JdbbBfiBtldbeHti6BbbeBtJ8eee 
88 BBBb GOGOG I654.J j^L.bbdHbudddda-idBaoJaabb-dBBbaddBBbbBBBdb bb 
™ _6B8 UUGu00U0aGG0BB8dbd6dddddBddB8Bd8BBoJUB9 8Bo66d66d8o666 
88 88B6 GC000GJUUijeebea8bd6ddd-i-)c'db6obddea6do6dbdbfiB6B«a8e666B 
BB 68B8 0Gu0uuju66daadiJu>ddfldddd3dddB6bdbb6b-iaddddd-..3bBBbb86a86 

eBBBbbbb-rbbdBdbbbdd^bedfcbb^bbbbdbbddbddHdb BBUbBBb 

aB eeaBBB8flBi.Hf,ot(Pbbbdddbbfcdt| 6 5Qdbebo5bB6ddw8dbBbbbdbdb BBG6B 
BBBfiBB"3dbbBBBbOBHbH8toBB8BBB-3B'3'irj«BBlibb-(-i7>bta-.H- T ,^ [ ,Tir)-ihd«88a 8B 

• **Bb«BBtiHBbbbebddbbbddbdeddbbdbbd6dd3dbcbrir.- 3 bbbt.dH DC ^bbdBe6 BB 

***aaeaaee9eH66Oj8B8B80BBB66BbbBbBb6dB6BbdbBdB8888 6b668Bb6B6 66 

**»8eBbbb8B8BB8e8888BbbbdBbbtiH^bdbbda3hebb3MHHHrit T bdbebbbd'-»Ubb 

♦ **BBddbLbbt!ddddHddbd8^ddBddddd , Eidd6dddd8b88ISSei«8e66ee66866B 
♦♦♦BdB6666BBeB66BBdbBBdufi8Bdddd88bB8B86bBbdBbBBBB8da6d66666B8 
•*bbbbdBbbbbbB8BB8be88BbedcdddddUd8dbdbbebdabdbadb8d9beB6b68o 
**Bd6ddbbeeeBbBbBdbB8BBbBdBbbbbBBb8bbd8ded3-i-r.-.-"--,-iMrr »r*dd98 88 BBS 

•BbBbBBbbbeBesBBdBdbdbbbnnbBdd^BBaBBobBBbbdBbeee ea 

B 8 866*6866886888 66 

'BBbebeeeBBBBddBbbBdBddbdddbddd dddbb8db bbbdbGbbb BBB 

B6b8bdbdbbbbOdbBbd6BHribBBbbbdH-tbbbBdbdd6eod 68888 B 

6 dbBeedt-ebeBdbbB^dd-uBBdBBddaBBfiBbaddbddBddee 
♦* 0Ga66fcbbbbdbHbdbbdbHbdbb8BHbb8Bftd6dbbbbadB8B6 
•** B6ee66BbBbbBBbbb6bbBB6B6d6^BBB6BB8B66bd66Bde 
*♦♦ U6BBBb6BbiiBbBdB'-H-iMBbBbBBddbBB66bdB66b6eB 
*»* e66Bbd6bBBb868fcl66[ 868068886660866866688)8 
6bbeBd6ddddbddbdd7.odbdnb-(nbb-.bnbdbb888bb 
bB666bb66GLJBdbB66b6Be6Bd8 68B66B9686bdaa 

♦♦ B 86B6BbbB8bB6B B 

***l UddBBB8688 g ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL 

•B B ('MAXIMUM* INCLUUbO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY! 



♦ ,l653,, (t . 



WTHGRNE 



B PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE 



UE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL 



LLES IN EACH LEVEL 



b aaaaaaa^ uuouuouuosj 



bgouooouuuog 



QGOUOJOGC 688888868 888818888 
QGU0G3UGC 866686666 888888818 

JGCu3LluaC bbbbtdBBB 8881^8888 



The preparation of this reap 
was financed In part through 
a comprehensive planning grant 
from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. 



1003001 
I003J0I 
10030 01 



ibb-eei 

iBB<.B6l 

ilW^Hbl 

168 4681 



II II 
1 aa aii 

1885 88 1 



FOOTNOTES 

^ 6 Eshref Shevky and Marianne Williams , The Social Areas of Los Angeles : Analysis 
and Typology (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1949). Wendell Bell, "The Social Areas of the San 
Francisco Bay Region," American Sociological Review (February, 1953), SVIII, 29-47. 

^'Shevky and Bell, Social Area Analysis : Theory , Illustrative Application and Com- 
putational Procedures (Stanford, 1955) . 



114 
1 



Chapter 10 
RECOMMENDATIONS 



As attested to in the factor analysis, the major underlying variable as derived related to the 
socio-economic status factor of households. In the event that any future quality of life study occur, 
this indicator (socio-economic status) should be considerably expanded. 

Overall, the study provided for a generalized view of the social problems of Gainesville and 
revealed many strong relationships among the fairly diverse social problem areas that were measured. 
However, because the study was limited with regard to the kinds and amounts of information available 
for use, it would be difficult to point out specific social program recommendations. In addition, the 
study investigated problem areas that went beyond the authority or expertise of this department. 

Since no single agency can be expected to deal with all these problems, and since there are 
agencies dealing with each of these problems, coordination of these agencies" should be stimulated 
so that communication links may be established for the inter-change of information for purposes of 
operations, planning, and analysis. With that, service delivery could become more efficient by 
reducing the redundancy of operations and data processing functions. 

With respect to pointing out general guidelines to better deal with the Gainesville housing 
problems, several major points should be made: 

1. Housing, like income, is more frequently a result rather than a cause of other social 
problems (such as lack of adequate income, lack of decent education, etc.); 

2. The areas that were shown to have the most apparent social-physical decay (i.e. , slum 
and blighted areas) are the same areas incurring the highest percentages of poverty 



115 



and low-income families, households, and persons; 

3. While planning on solving the housing problems of Gainesville, comprehensive methods 
must be simultaneously planned for the reduction of the urban poverty which exists. 
These could include, but should not necessarily be limited to, the following: 

a. Investigation of new educational methods which are specifically designed to attack 
the unique problems of the low-income persons, juvenile delinquency, the school 
drop-outs, etc. ; • 

b. Investigation of new methods that could provide for the reduction of unemployment 
and underemployment which exists by training/retraining the young, adults, crea- 
tion of new jobs , etc. ; 

c. Investigation of the possibilities of extending more quality social services into the 
neighborhoods (such as bookmobiles , swim-mobiles , cultural events , health services , 
etc.) which could promote an interest in the neighborhood and self-help which should 
be encouraged as often as possible; 

d. Investigation of those neighborhoods that could qualify for at least some renewal 
treatment with regard to the residents' feelings, attitudes, values (especially in 
relation to types of homes — single family , multiple family , mobile homes — and 
possible locations of any future public housing sites) and unique characteristics 
so as to carefully distinguish those stable, family-based blocks and neighborhoods 
from the unstable ones; 

e. Carefully investigate those programs that concentrate on people (especially pro- 
grams which relate to marital and family stability as brought out in the study) , on 
families and households, and on the socio-economic forces which promote their dep- 
rivation; and 

f. Investigation of the effectiveness of the "filtering method" as a principal means by 
which the housing the lower income households occupy is upgraded. As the middle 
income households move into newer, smaller houses or older, larger houses vacated 



116 



by even wealthier households , these middle income households can pass on their 
houses to the lower income households; 

g. Efforts should be made to appoint some local agency to be responsible for up-to- 
date housing vacancies , rates , locations , and availability; 

h. Comprehensive analysis of criminal behavior; investigation as to reasons why, 
locations, and criminal characteristics; impact on residents' physical and/or 
psychological security? 

i. Investigation of criteria for setting up new districts for planning purposes; 

j . In conclusion , all those areas outlined at the end of each chapter regarding 

possible future areas of investigations should be considered. It should be clear 
that the success of this and all the above is largely contingent upon the coordi- 
nation between and among agencies . Dealing with the housing problem alone and 
ignoring the other urban poverty problems will only result in further remedial ac- 
tion. A disease such as poverty cannot be cured by attacking the symptoms (blight) . 

4. Should public housing be chosen as an available alternative for improving the quality of 
life for existing slum dwellers , efforts should be taken to: 

a. Build on existing vacant land that is close to an existing or potential mass transit sys- 
tem. Should the population living in the worst areas move into the new, low-cost 
buildings first, the City could probably acquire their vacated properties at reduced 
costs and with a minimal amount of chaos. Careful consideration must be given to the 
actual sites of low-cost housing so as to provide for the least amount of social, eco- 
nomic, and psychological conflict of the families and households with which we are 
concerned; and 

b. Consider the concepts of "defensible space" and "sense of territory" prior to the actual 
design and location of any public housing sites . 



117 



5. Careful consideration should be given to the possibilities of non- residential renewal. 
As more professional services are encouraged to locate downtown, for example, perhaps 
powerful incentives may be provided for professional families to relocate in or around 
the downtown area (NE Gainesville/Boulevard area, for example) . With the luring of 
more professionals to the downtown area comes an increased pressure for attracting even 
more new offices, restaurants, theaters, night clubs, and shopping facilities. These new 
developments in turn would provide for more employment opportunities for the lower in- 
come groups which live near the central area while encouraging a better mass transit sys- 
tem. 



118 



APPENDIX 















Oc 




\:\ 


A > 



0> 

I 

!° 

In 

CO 




in 

(0 



► V 

f P 

► v 




JOT 



0) 


I 

(Jl 

b 
o 



> D 2 H 
D 2 > a 

BS2S 

2 2 O > 

?Sgi 

5 £ ~ ^ 



w 

b) 
o 

i 

Ul 
(0 



2 H 

% M 

> 5 

►n > 

x d 

o O 

PI 7 

°o 

2 '" 

> 2 

3J (/I 



S7 







ST 



!2ND 



5TH TE" 



BDDH 
QDH r 



BED 



I | II I H | 



I2TH 



TERR. 



L-LIL- 



.• : aM.i.ihi'ri i i I* I'l'iViij iVi'u j.'l, 



I2TH 


TERR 




I3TH 


ST 




I4TH 


ST 





I4TH 



I5TH 




69 



>v.v;v: 

f £E32jZ3 



:::S;!?l!^:;:-9i:$: 



■VT1 



f ► (- ►■ 

h ► ► * 

► ► P- t 
► ► F- ► 

► f f ► 

h * * sY 



•» — r~ »~»"v 

» F F F 1 

r F f f » , 

F F ¥ F I | .' 
F F F F F 
F F F F 

!• F 



-1. 
'ft <vrv 

F » » I*--*!"! 

V -~P it ■ ir I 
F F F F 

' ' » Mt 
F T F F a«i 



■ *STHa; 



.-2CTrt _ 

-• — 



I K 
i (■) 



J Eli: 



a> 



i .> 

La. 



-:ir f i*'?»iW , ->. , *i. , .J>«. 






P» * * K > »> 
► I- ► . I" * I 

h >■*'*■ *■ *■ 1 




SBilli 



M-r 



4 4 4 

( w * 4 < 



v- « 4 U =4 4 * -a A 

a. ',, 4 .* 4 X , 4 4 4 

< < 1 t < * -I 4 < ■ 

4.141*1144 



f » ► p • r » ► > fc 



?'» TH 



I6TH 











0:n 




z > 




H 




HZ 




qO 


2 

> 


0)^ 


> 

i 


9i 




ro £ 




r (/) 




°z 




)0 

A 




0) 



In a research project conducted by the Gallup Organization in 1959, 1964, and 
1971 in which some of the American people were asked what their chief personal 
hopes and fears might be, the following results occurred: 

Table A-l 

PERSONAL HOPES AND FEARS IN PERCENTAGES* 



PERSONAL HOPES 



PERSONAL FEARS 



1959 



1964 



1971 



1959 



1964 



1971 



Good health for self 40 

Better standard of living 38 

Peace in the world 9 

Achievement of Aspirations 

for children 29 

Happy family life 18 

Good health for family 16 

Own house or live in 

better one 24 

Peace of mind; emotional 



29 


29 


111 health for self 


40 


27 


Lower standard of 1 


17 


19 


War 


35 


17 


111 health for family 


18 


14 


Unemployment 


25 


13 


Inflation 



40 


25 


28 


23 


19 


18 


21 


29 


17 


25 


27 


16 


10 


14 


13 


1 


3 


11 



12 



11 



Unhappy children 



12 



10 



maturity 


5 


9 


8* 


Drug problem in family 


— 


~— 


7 


Having leisure time 


11 


5 


6 


Pollution 


— 


— 


7 


Happy old age 


10 


8 


6 


Political instability 


1 


2 


5 


Good job; congenial work 


7 


9 


6 


No fears at all 


12 


10 


5 


Employment 


5 


8 


6 


Crime 


— 


~ 


5 


Freedom from inflation 


1 


2 


6 











Other general concerns for 

family 7 4 5 

*A shift of 4 percentage points among the three studies (1959, 1964, 1971) is considered statistically significant. 
Taken from Hopes and Fears of the American People by A. H. Cantril and C. W. Roll. Jr. (New York: Universe 
Books, 1971) . p. 19. 



120 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCtENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCCrniJ ICRCATION OATE » 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DHWNI VAR319 X SUH-STANOARD HOUSING UNITS 



33. P9 ♦ 



1 .C7 



3.21 



5.35 



7.49 



9.63 



♦ --.-.----.---..----»---- + -.-...»..---...___._-. 



(ACROSS) VAR321 
11.77 13.91 



PROPERTY CRIMe 

16.06 18.20 

■ < ■ » ■»♦ 



20. 3 * 



----+----»•>- —+----♦----+----+----«---- 






33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23.17 



19.86 



19.86 



16.55 



16.55 



13.24 



13.24 



9.93 



9.93 



6.62 



6.62 



3.31 



* • 

* * 



• *■ ' 

?.0 +2 *>2* • »2* * • 

.♦._. ♦—»♦——»- ■ ■ .t . ... t....t.. . .|... .4 .... >. . . . t.~.4 m . t. i . .>... . t .. ..).. , . ». ...| . .. .«.-»-«■■-»,.», 

S." 2.14 4.28 6.42 S.S6 10.70 12.84 14.98 17.13 19.27 21.41 



3.31 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRFLATION «R>- 
STO FPP OF EST - 

PlflTTFD V»LUC5 - 



121 



0.69928 
5.8R214 

4P 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
F.XCLUDEO VALUES- 



0.48899 
0.6290S 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE IB) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.C0001 
1.09501 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/0I/72 

FILE CtrillJ (CREATION DATE « 07/16/73* 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR319 X SUO-STANOARD HOUSING UNITS 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VAR322 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 



1.9C 



S.69 



33. C9 ♦ 



9.»a 



13.27 17.06 20.6S 24.6* 28.43 32.22 36.02 

.A----*-—*----*-—*. 



___♦ ♦ * ,. ,. .. «. * «. «. ^ ^ ^ + ^ ^ ^ ^__ 



33.09 







29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23. 17 



19.86 



19.66 



16.55 



16.55 



13.24 ♦• 



13.24 



9.93 



9.93 



6.6? 



6.62 



3.31 



3.31 



: •• • 

CO O *2* • *2 2 

r .<" 3.79 



7.58 11.37 



15.16 18.96 22.75 



..-»-. -.4.. __- + ._. 
26.54 30*33 



34.12 37.91 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERStON OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORPELATION (R)- 
STO- ERR OF FST - 
PLOTTED VALUFS - 



0.83008 
4. 588*4 
40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (Al 
EXCLUDED VALUES- 



122 



0.68904 
1.08013 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
0.68335 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



OS/22/73 



FILE GCCPHI3 ICREATION OATE * 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (OflWN) VAR319 X SUB-STANOARD HOUSING UNITS 



(ACROSS) VAR320 CRIME OF VIOLENCE 



33. C9 ♦ 



26.47 



23.17 



19.1*6 



16.55 



13.24 



9.93 



6.62 



3.31 



CO 



0.46 



1 .38 



2.29 



3.21 



4.13 



5.05 



5.96 



6.66 7.80 

— » . ..i«t ■ . — ■« 



8.72 
.-♦——♦, 



* 



33.09 



29.76 



26.47 



23.17 



19.66 



16.55 



13.24 



9.93 



6.62 



3.31 



O.C 



Oil 



C.92 



■■ |....|....>» ■■■! ■■ ..»■■..»....> i ■■■> ■ . ■«!. . ■ 

1.83 2.75 3.67 4.59 S.50 



6.42 7.34 



8.26 9.17 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 

STO FWR OF FST • 
PlDTTTP VALUES • 



0. 80993 
4.82626 
40 



R SOUARF.O 
INTCRC6PT (A) 
CKCLUOEO VALUES- 



0.65598 
1.96921 



123 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
2.S3I20 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOB THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/C1/72 

FILF 6CCC1II3 ICREATION DATE = 07/16/731 

SUBriLE C2 C3 

SCATTEBf.RAM OP IDOwN) VAR319 X SUB-STANDARD MOUSING UNITS 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VAR120 PER CENT MUSE AND-W IFE FAMILIES 



33. C9 



55.67* 59.86* 6*. 055 68.2*5 72.436 76.626 80.817 85.007 89.198 93.389 
. — ♦ ♦ «. «. «. «. * «. — .. 4 ♦-- -- ♦ ».-_.« «.„ — 4 ♦ _. — * «. — __«. f . # 

• ♦ 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26. «7 



26. *7 



23.17 



23. 17 



19.86 



19.86 



16.55 



16.55 



13.2* 



13.2* 



- 9.93 



9.93 



6.62 



6.62 



3.31 



* • 

* • 



3.31 



e.o ♦ 

53.578 57.769 



• * 

• • * 

• * 

• • * • * ••• •• *2 • 

61.959 66.150 70.3*1 7*. 531 78.722 82.912 87.103 91.293 95.48* 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FCR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

COOPFl ATICN IR>- 
STD ruo a* FST - 
PLOTTFO VALUES - 



-0.650 77 
6.2*77* 

*0 



R SOUARCD 
INTERCEPT (At 
EXCLUOEO VALUFS- 



124 



0.42350 
•7.63**1 




SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE 10) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-0.50193 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 

FILE GCCCU13 (CREATION OATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR319 X SUB-STANDARD HOUSING UNITS 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VAR328 X FAMILIES W LT 18 MEMBER NOT HU 



33. C9 



6.84 11.35 15.86 20.37 24.88 29.39 33.90 



38.41 



42.92 



--»--_-».-.-+-- — »._-__♦____ ♦-— -+..-- 



47.43 

♦-— ♦. 

♦ 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23.17 



19.86 



19.86 



16. 55 



16.55 



13.24 



13.24 



9.93 



9.93 



6.62 



6.62 



3.31 ♦ ♦ • 

• • * 

O.C ♦•♦• ••• 2 • * • * * ♦ 

. t ♦ * . ♦-- — +--.-»----+ _+ — .-«.„-_-«..—». *.....*.-.._«.- ___«._„_♦____♦__„.»_ —>____♦. 

4.58 9.09 13.60 18.11 22.62 27.13 31.64 36.16 40.67 4S.18 49.69 



3.31 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO ERR OF EST • 
PLOTTfD VALUES • 



0.64479 
6.28956 
40 



R SQUARED ■ - 

INTERCEPT (A) - 
CXCLUOEO VALUES- 



0.41575 
- 1.77561 

125 ° 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (8) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
0.40062 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE - FOX THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILE GCC0U13 (CREATION OATE = 07/16/731 

SU9FILF C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (OCWNI VAR3I9 X SU8-STANOARO HOUSING UNITS 



08/22/73 



(ACROSSI VAR1S8 AVE. ATM GRO. -TEST SCORE 



33. P9 



25. IC 



29.30 



33.50 



37.70 41.90 Aft. 10 50.30 94.50 58.70 62.90 



. ♦- ♦-- ♦----♦----«■----♦----♦----♦--—♦----♦-- — ♦--__♦-_-_♦__-_♦-_ _„4 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23.17 



19.86 



19.86 



16.55 



16.55 



13.24 



• • 



13.24 



9.93 



9.93 



6.6? 



6.62 



3.31 



3.31 



, ♦ «..-.-«. 4- ♦ ♦ — -_♦-- ♦ -- ♦- ♦__-_♦- 



?3.0? 



27. 2C 31.40 



♦ - 
35. b3 



* * 

2* • • * a * •< 

.«.--— ♦-— ->-—-♦----»— —♦--—♦—-♦----♦--—»----4-— -«.. 

39.80 44.00 48.20 52.40 56.60 60.80 65.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION <P>- 
STO EOP OF EST - 

pi ni rro vai li c s 



-0. 73487 
5.82970 
35 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
CKCLUOCO VALUES- 



126 



O.S40O3 
29.295C1 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <8> 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
•0.56363 

5 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/CI/72 

FILE GCCIII3 (CREATION DATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTFPGRAM DF (DOWN) VAR319 X SUB-STANDARD HOUSING UNITS 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VARIOO AVE. 6TH GRD . TEST SCORE 



33.0O 



40.65 45.95 51. 2S 56.55 61.65 67.15 72.45 77.75 83.05 88.35 
._-♦ ♦ «. » » «. » # . . . 1 , # # # % 4 # ^^ 

* ♦ 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23.17 



19.86 



19.86 



16.55 



1«.55 



13.24 



13.24 



o.93 



9.93 



6.62 



6.62 



3.31 



3.31 



c.o ♦ • • 2 • ♦♦♦ 

31. CO 43.30 48.60 S3. 90 59.20 64.50 69. 8C 75.10 



# *♦ 
60.40 85.70 91.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

COROFLATION (P)- 
STD FPR OF EST — 
PLC1TTFO VALUFS • 



-0.53036 
7.16483 
3ft 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUOEO VALUES- 



127 



0.28128 
23.59388 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (8) 

MISSINC 



0.00044 
•0.29506 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE F0» THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/7. 

FILE SCCCIIII ICREATION DATE * 07/16/73* 

SUBFILE C? C? 

SCATTFRGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR319 X SUB-STANOARO HOUSING UNITS 



08/21/73 



(ACROSS) VAR202 AVE. STH GRD. TEST SCORE 



49.7" 
♦ 4._._4-___4... _+._. 



33. C9 



S7.10 64. SO 71.90 79.30 86.70 9*. 10 101. SO 106.90 116.30 

--4-- --4-— .4-. — 4. «.-— 4.-.— ♦--- -4.---- «.__— 4 4— — 4. — — 4--. -4--.- 4, 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23.17 



19.86 



19.86 



16.55 



16.55 



13.24 



13.24 



9.93 



9.93 



6.6? 



6.62 



3.31 



0.0 



.4- ♦_- 4- — 

46. CC 53. AC 



• 4 

• * 

• 4* 4 

._.4-„-4-.--4----4-- 4 --♦ --4— — 

60.80 68.20 75.60 83.00 



* * 4 * 4 

.._4.--.4-. — 4-- — 4---. 4---- 4-- — 4-. — 4— --4. 
90.40 97.80 10S.20 112.60 120.00 



3.31 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORPFLATION IP)- 
STO FRR OF FSf • 
PLOTTFD VALUES 



-0.69056 
6.17709 
35 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUOFO VALUES- 



0.47688 
30.58286 



128 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
•0.31900 

5 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/C1/72 



08/22/73 



FILE COCO 11 13 (CREATION OATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR319 X SUB-STANOARD HOUSING UNITS 



39. A0 



33. f 9 



29.78 



26. *7 



23.17 



19.86 



13.2* 



9.93 



6.62 



3.31 



AA.20 A9.00 



53.80 



58.60 



(ACROSS) VAR224 AVE. TEST SCORE FOR SCHOOL 

63.40 68. 2C 73.00 



77.80 82.60 






C.C ♦ • • 2 

37. CO 41.80 46.60 51.40 56.20 



* * 

• « 2 

> . .#■■■> » . lit t i i ■ t ■ » ■ ■ 

61.00 65.80 70. 6C 75.40 



* • 2« 

80.20 85.00 



33.09 



29.78 



26.47 



23. 17 



19.86 



16.55 



13.24 



9.93 



6.62 



3.31 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/C1/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORCFLATION |R>- 
STO FOR OF EST - 
PI OTTTO V*l tICS 



- C . 60 1 1 

6.69942 

38 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT <A» 
EXCLUOCO VALUFS- 



0.36122 
26.42061 



129 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <B> 
"ISSING VA'.KFS 



0.00003 
•0*35096 

2 



STATISTICAL PACKAGf FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILE CQCCM13 (CREATION OATE * 07/I6/73J 

SunFILF C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN! VAR319 X SUB-STANDARD MOUSING UNITS 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VAR3IB AVE.12TH GRD. SCORE 



22. ZC 



CH.ftO 115.00 

.--4.--. .«...-.»-.. 



161.40 207. 80 234.20 300.60 347.00 



33. C9 



393.40 439.60 

— — +---.«.---«.._„_ + , 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23. 17 



19.86 



19.86 



16.55 



16.55 



13.24 ♦• 



13.24 



9.93 



9.93 



6.62 



6.62 



3.31 



3.31 



O.C *3 ••••#•«♦»« 

.«..---+ — _-»_-__«._--. «.-.-«.. ---4. .-..»--- .4... .«....». — ».-.-+-..-»..-.._+_-_—»...-«.._..»„.._.»__.._«„___ ^. 
-I.4C 45.40 91.80 138.20 184.60 231.00 277.40 323.80 370.20 416.60 463.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FCP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VERSION OF 02/01/72 



OB/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (P)- 
STO ERP OF EST - 

PLOTTED VALUES - 

■ 



-0.14164 
8. 14556 
40 



R SOUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUOEO VALUES- 



0.02006 
8.26259 



130 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (6) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.19165 
-0.00793 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/0I/72 



08/24/73 



FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION DATE = 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRA& OF (DOWN) VARJ19 X SUH-STANOARD MOUSING UNITS 



-0.34 



.20 



6.7! 



10.29 



13. 64 



(ACROSSI AOCHT1 RATE OF AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDRE 

17.38 20.93 24.47 28.02 31.56 



33.09 ♦ 



29.78 



26.47 



• 23.17 



19.86 



16. SS 



13.24 



9.93 



6.62 



3.31 ♦ * • 

• * 

• 4 • 

• * 

0.0 ♦•• 2 *2 2* 2 4 

. ♦__ — + ♦__ ♦- — -♦ -♦■--- 4 ---- f -■♦-■--* — -->" — * -■-■>» m i » ■ i. ■ ■ t ■ ■!■ ■ | i ■■ .ii ■■■ ■ 

•2.11 1.43 4.98 8.52 12.06 15.61 19.15 22.70 26.24 



33.09 



29.78 



26.47 



23.17 



19.86 



16.55 



13.24 



9.93 



6.62 



3.31 



0.0 



29.79 33.33 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR Tf-E SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/C1/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION IR>- 
STD ERR OF EST - 

PLOTTfn VALUFS - 



0.579e9 
6.70376 

40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
CxCLLOEO VALUES- 



131 



0.33627 

3.39303 




SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 

MISSING V/.'.UES 



0.00004 
0.51214 
O 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILE SPSSFILE ICREATION OATE * C7/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DO»N> VAR319 X SUB-STANOARO MOUSING UNITS 



08/24/73 



(ACROSS) AFOCRT AIO FAM«S M DEPENDENT CHILDREN 



33.09 



•0.96 



1 .34 



3.65 



S.95 



, ♦--_-♦ ♦- ♦ «4. ♦ __«.____._ .«.«_, 



8.26 10.56 12.87 15.17 17.48 19.78 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23. 17 



19.86 



19. e6 



16.55 



16.95 



13.24 



13.24 



9.93 



9.93 



6.62 



6.62 



3.31 



3.31 



0.0 ♦* • 2 • 3 • 

.♦ — .. ♦ ♦- 

-2.1 1 C . 19 



2.'5C 4.80 



| . . i .).i..t....| . i | ■ i »«—. 
7.11 9.41 11.72 14.02 



16.33 



18.63 20.94 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/C1/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STD ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTEO V»LUES 



0.84140 
4.44675 

40 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) 
FXCLLOED VALUES- 



0.70796 
1.40084 

132 o 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <B> 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
1.1 5016 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION OATE » 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR319 X SU8-STAN0AR0 HOUSING UNITS 



0.31 



S.16 10.00 



. ♦-- — ♦-- — ♦----♦----♦----»----♦----♦-—-♦ — _♦____♦_„_♦____♦__ 



33.09 ♦ 



i4.es 

* 



19.70 



06/24/73 

(ACROSS) ATDBRT RATE OF AID TO DISABLED 
24. 55 29.39 34.24 39.09 



43.94 



33.09 



29.78 



29.78 



26.47 



26.47 



23.17 



23. 17 



19.86 



19.86 



16.55 



16. «5 



13.24 



13.24 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FCR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (B>- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTCO VALUES - 



0.61538 
6.48596 
40 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) - 



0.37870 
3.62857 



133 



ExCLUOEO V ALUES- ■*.***« Q 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 

m r ssing vai uc 



0.00001 
0.41603 



9.53 



6.62 



6.62 



3.31 






3.31 



3 
• * 
0.0 ♦»*2«.6« 



, ♦____♦____.____♦_--_♦---- 



-2.11 



2.73 



|... . |... .>.■■■!.■ .. I ■■■!■. ■ i n I . . .. ) ....t > i..(... i ti. . . »... .|. ...|.. . .»....4, 

7.58 12.43 17.28 22.12 26.97 31.82 36.67 41.51 46.36 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAC.C FOR THF SOCIAL SCIENCES. VFRSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



Fttf MfCIIIJ ICOCATION DATE =07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 O 

SCATTERGPAM OF (DOWN) VARI2B HOUSING VAL.-RENT- I NDEX 



(ACROSS) VAR321 PROPERTY CRIME 



1.07 3.21 
, «•- . ♦ ♦ 



5.35 



7.49 9.63 11.77 13.91 16.06 18.20 20.3* 



2* 



I .967 



1.636 



1.31-A 



0.972 



0.64C 



0.3C9 



•0.023 



•T.355 



-0.607 



-1.CI8 



•1.35C ♦* ♦ 

. t.... > . ... »^..^..^». . l . | . .. .| .. ..| .i.. ) . . . . ti ii «i m l ■■■■| i i i|i i i | ii t...ii|.. .|i ■■■!■■■ i | l, 

0.0 2.14 4.28 6.42 8.SA 10.70 12.84 14.98 17.13 19.27 21.41 



• 4 



1.967 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



•0.355 



-0.687 



-1.018 



-1.350 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

C0HRFLATICN |P)- 
STO FRR OF EST - 
PLOTTFO VALUES - 



-0.46776 
0.77210 
40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUOEO VALUES- 



0.21880 
0.65127 

134 o 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (3) 
MISSING VALUFS 



0.00117 

-0.07776 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VERSION OF 02/01 fit 

FILE SCCC1I13 <CPEAT!ON OATE = 07/16/731 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR 1 28 HOUSING VAL .-RENT-I NDEX 



1.90 



5.69 



9. *8 



13.27 



17.06 



08/22/73 

(ACROSS* VAR322 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 

20.85 24.64 28.43 32.22 36.02 



. «--■'«— *■- — «■— — — f— -■ ■ -f- | f- | | -■■ | , r« . r . . | 



.~4 .. ..» .. . .) . .. . t. . ..t. . .. t | 



1.967 ♦ • 



1.967 



1 .636 



1.636 



1.304 



1.304 



0.97 2 



2 4 * 



0.972 



C .640 



0.640 



0.3C9 



0.3 09 



•'".f 23 



-0.023 



-0.355 



-0.355 



-0.687 



-0.687 



-I. CIS 



-1 .018 



•1.35C ♦ • 

.♦ *- |. . . . t . lll | II | I ■■ It ■■■■!■■■■»■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■•» ■'■■!>■ ■■■*■■■'■> " ■■■> »■«■> " ■■■ t I H ■ ■ >' ■ II I I I I ■ I I ■ ♦. 

O.C 3.79 7.58 11.37 15.16 18.96 22.75 26.54 3C.33 34.12 37.91 



-1.350 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION |R»- 
STO fRR OF EST '- 

fi ott rn v<m iji- ■ 



-0.60764 
0.69379 
SO 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (Al 
EXCLUOED VAIUES- 



0.36923 
0.65444 



135 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <B> 
MISSING VAIUFS 



0.00002 

-0.05311 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/C1/72 

FILE GrcCll 13 (CREATION OATF * 07/16/731 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTEPGPAM OF (ODWN) VAP128 MOUSING VAL .-RENT- INOEX 



.46 



1.36 



2.29 



3.21 



4.13 



08/22/73 

(ACROSS* VAR320 CRIME OF VIOLENCE 

5.05 5.96 6.88 7.80 



3 * 



1 .967 



1 .636 



1.3C4 



0.972 



P.64C 



0.3C9 



-C.023 



•C.355 



-0.6*7 



-1.C18 



•1.350 ♦• 

CO C.92 1.83 2.75 3.67 



8.72 



• • 



1 .967 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



-0.335 



-0.687 



-1.018 



-1.350 



4.59 5.50 



6.42 7.34 8.26 9.17 



STATISTICAL PACKAGF FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R|- 
STO FRP OF EST - 
PLOTTFD VALUFS - 



-0.5B662 
0.7C746 
40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (Al 
CXCLUDCO VALUES- 



136 



0.34412 
0.58176 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (6) 
MISSING VALUE! 



0.00003 
-0.19463 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 08/22/73 

07/16/73) 

MOUSING VAL. -RENT-INDEX (ACROSS! VAR120 PER CENT HUS8AN0-WIFE FAMILIES 

55.674 59.664 64.055 68.245 72.436 76.626 80.817 85.007 89.198 93.389 



FILE CC00MI3 (CREATION DATE 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERC.RAM OF (OOWN» VARI28 



J. 96 7 



«.-.-.+-.-- + .-. 



•♦■ -♦•----♦. — — ♦ — --♦-- ♦----♦----♦- — ♦» — ♦ — -♦ — --♦——♦-.--♦-.-._ ♦-_._♦.____♦._.__», 



1.967 



I .636 



1.636 



1.30 4 



1.304 



0.972 



0.9 72 



0.64C 



0.640 



0.309 



0.309 



•0.023 



-0.023 



-0.355 



-0.355 



■'.ft87 



* 



-0.687 



•1 .018 



-1.018 



-1.350 ♦ * ♦ 

.♦ ♦ «._---♦- — >----♦— — ♦ — --♦----♦----♦--«-♦-- — ♦.--—♦- — -♦ — -»♦-- — ♦-- — »----+....+--.-+ _«.. 

53.578 57.769 61.959 66.150 70.341 74.531 78.722 82.912 87.103 91.293 95.484 



-1.350 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (Rl- 
STO FRO OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUFS - 



0.65405 
0.66035 
4C 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (At 
EXCLUOEO VALUES- 



0.42856 
-4.16450 

137 ° 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



O.C0001 
0.0S360 




STATISTICS PACKAGE TOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/C1/T2 



08/22/73 



FILE GC0C111J (CREATION DATE a 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATT*RGPAM OF (OOWNl VAR128 HOUSING VAL. -RENT-I NOEX 



(ACROSS! VAR328 X FAMILIES H LT* 18 MEMBER NOT HU 



6.84 11. 3S 15.86 20.37 24.88 29.39 33.90 



38.41 



♦ •* * 



1.96 7 



1.636 



I.3C4 



C.972 



0.64C 



0.3C9 



-C.023 



-0.355 



•C.687 



-1.C18 



•1.35C ♦ • 

. t.^.t. ... »....t....t....tw.. > .. .. > .." «~»»f.. " ) .." t» "i( . »i'> i- ...... 

4. SB 9.09 13.60 18.11 22.62 27.13 31*64 36.16 



42.92 47.43 

.--♦• -♦ ♦ ♦, 



• * * 



• •* 



* 
* * 



1.967 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



-0.355 



-0.687 



-1.018 



-1 .350 



40.67 45.18 49.69 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/C1/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

COTPELATION (R|- 
STO FPP OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUES - 



-0.61564 
0.68839 
40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUDED VALUFS- 



138 



0.37901 
1.06819 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 



0.00001 
•0.04061 



FILE GCr0tll3 ICREATION OATE » C7/16/73) 

SUOFILF C2 C3 

SCATTERGRA* OF < DOWN > VAR128 HOUSING V AL .-BENT- I NDEX 



«,.-„;; 



(ACROSS) VARISS AVE. 4TH GRD . TEST SCORE 

25. 10 29.30 33. SO 37.70 41.90 46.10 50.30 54.50 58.70 62.90 



♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ <._--.«.-.-.»-_ — +-_-_+._. 



1.967 



— >-■■■• — «-♦——»- -♦- — ♦——♦- — ♦, 



1.967 



1 .636 



1.3C4 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.972 



C.64P 



0.6*0 



C.309 



• 2 • ♦ 

« 



0.309 



-0.023 



-0.023 



-0.355 



-0.355 



•0.687 



• 2 • 



-0.687 



-1.C18 



-1.018 



•1.35C ♦ *♦ 

23.00 27.20 31.40 35.60 39.80 44.00 48.20 52.40 56.60 60.80 65.00 



■1.350 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRFLATION (R)- 
STO EPR OF CST 
PLOTTFO VALUES 





0.65720 


« SQUARED 




0.43192 


SIGNIFICANCE 




0.65109 


INTERCEPT |AI 




-1.86341 


SLOPE (0) 




35 


EKCLUOEO VALUES- 


139 





MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
0.C5066 

5 



STATISTICAL PACKAGF FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILE C.CTCU13 (CREATION OATE = 07/16/731 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTEPGRAM OF (OOWN) VAP128 HOUSING VAL.-PENT- I NOEK 



40.65 



45.95 



51.25 



56.55 



61.83 



.♦----♦----♦----♦----♦----«.--__♦__ __♦-.___♦____.»____« 



1.96 7 ♦ 



08/22/73 

(ACROSSI VAR180 AVE. 6TH GRO. T.EST SCORE 

67,15 72.45 77.75 83.05 88.35 
— — ♦ -♦- ♦ — — ♦ -♦-- — »-_••« -♦-- — ♦- ♦, 



1 .967 



1.636 



1.636 



1.304 



1.304 



C.972 



0.972 



C.64C 



0.640 



C.3C9 



•0.P23 



2 * 

* . * 



0.309 



-0.023 



-C.35? 



•0.35S 



•0.687 



-0.687 



•i.cie 



■1.018 



•I.35C ♦ 
• < 

38.00 



♦-_ — ♦ ♦_- — ♦ +--..+---.+---.».---*..-.+-. — «----»--.-*. — «_♦ ♦____._-__».___♦ — _„«. — __ 



43.30 



43.60 



53.90 



• ♦ 
59.20 



64.50 



69.80 75.10 



80.40 85.70 



♦ 
91.00 



•1 .350 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION IR)- 
STO FPP 0^ FST - 
PLOTTFD VALUES - 



0.70261 


R SQUARED 




0.49366 


fl.6"C68 


INTERCEPT (A) - 




-1.98946 


36 


EXCLUOEO VALUES- 


140 






SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
0.03894 

4 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OP 08/01/72 

PILE COrotI13 (CRCATION DATE * 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTPRGOAM OF" <DO»N> VAR126 HOUSING VAL.-RENT-I NOEX 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VAR202 AVE. 8TH GRD. TEST SCORE 



49. 7C S7.10 64.50 71.90 79.30 86.70 94.10 101.50 106.90 116.30 

| »——♦—»—♦——♦»--- « ■ ■«...»—» . ■! ■■ I. -» l«. .»..«.». ■ ..«■■■..+■ . .I.f, .III I. .f, .1 -»»-■«.»■ I. Ill I. <».» ■!>!.■ I .|.. .l *,.»-»», 



1 .967 



1 .636 



1 .636 



1.304 



1.304 



C.97? 



• • * 



0.972 



0.64T 



0.640 



C.3C9 



0.309 



• •* * • 



-0.C23 



-0.023 



-0.355 



*« 



-0.355 



-C.667 



|« » • • 



-0.667 



-i.eie 



-l.oie 



•1.35C ♦ 

.♦ — — ♦-— ♦ — - 

46.00 53.40 



60.80 68.20 75.60 



..«..-.« ■ ■■■ it ■!■■■■ | « ■■ i f.... | . .. .|. ii !■ ♦« 

83. CO 90.40 97.80 105.20 112.60 120.00 



-1 .350 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



06/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION »R)- 
STO FRR OP ESt - 
PI OTTPD VAl IJF5 - 



0.58555 
C. 69363 

IS 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 



0*34287 
- 1.86216 



141 . 

FXCLUOED VALUES- 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (8) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00011 
0.02710 

5 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE Crrcill3 (CREATION DATE » 07/16/731 

SU6FILF C2 C3 

SCATTERGPA-t D* (DOWN) VAR126 MOUSING V AL .-RENT- I NOEX 



(ACROSS) VAR224 AVE. TEST SCORE FOR SCHOOL 



39.40 44.20 



49.00 53.80 SB. 60 63.40 68.20 73.00 77.80 82.60 



1.967 ♦ 



1 .636 



1.3C4 



0.972 



C.640 



0.309 



•C.C23 



•C.35S 



•0.6«7 



2 • 



2 • 



•I .CIS 



•1.35C ♦ 

.». ♦ ♦ 

37. CO 41.80 



1.967 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



-0.355 



-0.687 



-1.018 



-1.350 



46.60 51.40 56.20 



61. CO 65.80 70.60 75.40 80.20 85.00 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRFLATION (R|- 
STD ERR OP FST - 

PlDTTrn viLin ', - 



T. 57957 
0.72425 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT IA) - 
CXCLUnFO VALUES- 



0.33590 
-1.82277 

142 c 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B> 
MISSING VALUES 



O.C0007 
0.03588 

2 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE f-0» THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



C8/22/73 



FILE CCM^ ICEATION OATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATT5PGPAM OF (On»N) VAPI28 MOUSING VAL . -RENT- I NDEX 



22.2 



{ACROSS) VAR31S AVE.12TH GRO . SCORE 

68.60 115. CO 161.40 207.80 254.20 300.60 3*7.00 393.40 439.80 



•4- ♦, 



* • * 



1.636 



I.3C4 



.972 



0.64' 



0.3C9 



-C.C23 



•C.35S 



-C.687 



-1.018 ♦ 



•I.35C ♦• ♦ 

. »» . ,% i. | . . . . |. . . . | ■ ■ ■■ % ■ ■ . ■ | n ■ ■ .| ■■■■! ... ii ■« i .ii ti ■ ■■ % m ■■ i| m it ■ ■ ■ ■! ■■ ■ ■>■■ .i ■ % ii ■ ■ i n | i ■_ i » ■■■4.I.. .|, 

-1.C0 45.40 91.80 138.20 184.60 231.00 277.40 323.80 370.20 416.60 463.00 



• * • 2 



• * 



1.967 



1 .636 



1.3C4 



0.9 72 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



-0.355 



-0.667 



•1.018 



-1 .350 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION <P>- 
STO ERP OF EST - 
PLnTTED VALUFS 



0.31404 
0.82936 

40 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUDED VALUES- 

m 



0.09862 
•0.20758 



143 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.02423 
0.00187 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION CATE * 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VARI28 HOUSING V AL .-RENT- I NOEX 



-C.34 



3.20 



6.75 10.29 



13.84 



(ACROSS) AOCRT1 RATE OF AID TO DEPENDENT CHILORE 

17.38 20.93 24.47 28.02 21.56 



• •• • 



1.967 



1 .636 



1.30 4 



0.97 2 



0.64 



0.309 



•0.023 



•0.35S 



•0.687 



-1.018 



•1.350 ♦ • ♦ 

-2.11 1.43 4.98 8.52 12.06 15.61 19.15 22.70 26.24 29.79 33.33 



24* 



1.907 



1.636 



1.3C4 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



-0.3S5 



-0.687 



-l.oia 



-1.390 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FCR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STD ERR OF EST - 

3i mien VAL ucs 



-0.65364 

0.66111 

40 



P. SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) * 
EXCLLCEO VALUES- 



0*42724 
0.59813 
44 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 

-0.06128 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOB THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VERSION OF 02/01/72 



00/24/73 



FILE S«»SSFILE (CREATION DATE = 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGOAM OF (DOWNl VAR126 HOUSING V AL .-RENT-l NDEX 



(ACROSSI AFOCRT AIO FAN'S W DEPENDENT CHILDREN 



-0.96 



1 .3* 



3.65 



5.95 6.26 10.56 12.87 15.17 17.48 19.76 
•-♦ -♦ ♦----♦----♦ — --« — -+ — — +-_ — «.____«._ — _«_ — -4 . 4 — ♦, 



• • » • 



1.967 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



-0.355 



-0.667 



-1 .018 



•1.350 ♦ * 

-2.11 0.19 2.50 4.80 7.11 9.41 11.72 14.02 16.33 



* * 



* 
* « 



* * 



1.967 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.640 



C.309 



•0.023 



-0.355 



•0.6C7 



-1.018 



-1.350 



.... I ... ■ i.| . ■■♦ . 
18.63 20.94 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION CR>- 
STO ERR OF. FST - 
PLOTTED VALUES - 



-0.72682 
0.59A13 
40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) - 
EXCLLDFD VALUES- 



145 



0.531 10 
0.69980 




SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (R) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
•0.10577 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION OATE * 07/C6/73I 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR128 HOUSING VAL .-RENT-I NOEX 



0.31 



5.16 10.00 14.65 1-5.70 



(ACROSS) ATOORT RATE OF AID TO OISABLEO 

2*. 55 29.39 34.24 39.09 43.94 



1.30 4 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.355 



-0.687 



-1 .018 



• • • 



1.636 



1.304 



0.972 



0.640 



0.309 



-0.023 



■0.J53 



•1.016 



•1.350 ♦ * ♦ -1.330 

-2.11 2.73 7.58 12.43 17.28 22.12 26.97 31.82 36.67 41. SI 46.36 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STO ERR OF EST - 

PLOTTFD VALUES - 



-0.58814 
0.70650 
40 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) 

EXCLUDED VALUES- 



146 



0.34591 

0.52067 




SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B> 

MISSING VALUES 



0.00003 
-0.04221 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE K3» THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE CCrc 11 13 <C«FATTON OATE « 07/16/73) 

SUBFILC C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF <00¥N) VAR 1 1 1 PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS NEGRO OC (ACROSS) VAR321 PROPERTY CRIME 



1.C7 
, » » ♦ 



3.21 
♦ --- 



5.35 
.-♦ — --♦- 



7.49 



9.63 11.77 13.91 16.06 



96.21S ♦ 



16.20 



20.34 
♦ ♦, 



96.215 



86.594 



86.594 



76.972 



76.972 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



4P.1C8 



48.108 



3P.4B* 



38.486 



28.865 



28.865 



19.24 3 



19.243 



9.622 ♦ 



9.622 



* • 

CO »3 33* 2*2 • 42« • 

. ♦-- — ♦__■-♦ — --»_.--+-_--.».... 

0.' 2.14 4.28 



6.42 



• * * 

* 
■> . .. .)i.. .|. .. .| ■ ■»>»»...«».»». 

8.56 10*70 12.84 



14.98 17.13 



i in . .|.. »« t... . >. .. .l. . .»« 
19.27 21.41 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION <R)- 
STD ERR OP EST - 
Pl.OTTFO VALUFS - 



n. 61987 
26.12270 

40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUDED VALUCS- 



147 



0.38424 
•1.51297 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE 10), 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
3.92699 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE TOR THE SOCIAL SCICNCCS. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



file Green t3 (creation date ■ 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR 1 1 1 PER CENT OCCUPIEO UNITS NEGRO OC (ACROSS) VAR322 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 



1.90 



5.69 



, ♦-___♦_- — »--.-«__ -.«.--_» ____*. ___»____ 



9.48 13.27 

♦----♦- 



17.06 20.85 2*. 6* 



28.43 



96.215 



32.22 36.02 

.-_+. — + — __ + -___*., 



96.21S 



66.594 



86.594 



76.972 



76.9 72 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



48.1C8 



48.108 



38.4B6 



38.486 



2A.86S 



28.065 



19.243 



19.243 



9.622 



9.622 



#2 * • * 

0.0 ♦6*23«4»* 2 2 2 ♦ 

. ♦-- — »--_-«.--.-+.- — «... — «... --«... --♦- ---+-- --♦- - — «——-♦-—-♦-—-♦• ....»_— .+—.-«— .-«.-_. _+-. _-+__._ + . 

C.C 3.79 7.58 11.37 15.16 18.96 22.75 26.54 30.33 34.12 37.91 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRFLATION (R)- 
STO FPR OF EST - 
PLOTTEO VALUFS - 



0.67609 
24,52877 

40 



R SQUARED - 0.45709 

INTERCEPT (A) - 1.63472 

EXCLUOEO VALUES- 148 C 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
2.25173 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/C1/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCCC11I3 CCRFATION DATE * 07/16/73) 

SU6FILE C? C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR11I PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS NEGRC OC (ACROSS) VAR320 CRIME OF VIOLENCE 



96.21 5 



0.46 
, ♦----♦ 



1.38 2.29 3.21 



4.13 



5. OS 



5.96 



6.88 



-- — ♦ ♦ «.__-_,. «. »_-«.-.♦.. — -.♦«___«.__. 



t-_. -»----«.---- +----« -_-_*_.._ 



7.80 
♦ ----♦- 



8.72 

"—♦-——♦« 



96.215 



86.594 



86.594 



76.972 



76.972 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



48.108 



48.108 



38.486 



38.486 



28.865 



28.865 



19.243 



19.2 43 



9.622 



9.622 



0.0 



13 
► 9 
. ♦ — 

C.C 



* 4 
• • • » 

C .92 



• •* 

1 .83 



— ♦ ♦- 

2.75 



-.-_»---.+__—»-.--+-.-.«. 



3.67 



4.59 



♦ - 

5. SO 



— ♦-- — ♦- 
6.42 



7.34 



._♦____♦_„_♦. 
8.26 9.17 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STO FRR OF EST - 
PLOTTFO VALUES - 



0.87452 
16.14533 



R SQUARED - 0.76478 

INTERCEPT (A) - -0.12138 

EXCLUOED VALUES- 149 C 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
HISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
11.05710 







— ^ —-,, r„ S f.socsc^s. 



VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



tile r.errni3 (creation date » 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTEHGRAM OF (OOWN) VAR I 1 1 PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS NEGRC OC (ACROSS) VAR120 PER CENT HUSBAND-WIFE FAMILIES 



96.215 



55.674 59.864 64. 055 68.245 72.436 76.626 80.817 85.007 89.198 93.389 

* ♦ 



96.215 



66.594 



86.594 



76.972 



76.972 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



-57.729 



48.108 



48.108 



38.486 



38.486 



2 6.86 5 



28.865 



19.243 



19.2 43 



9.622 



9.622 



• ••• • • 

C.C ♦ • • ••• * 43* 22 *2 *« 

.+--.-«----«..- -_»-_- -+---. +-.-.+. _-.«.--- _«.___- >.-.-t- -—«----»--- -+--- -»- ..-4..-- «. ..-«.---. «.--. «..___«.. 

53.578 57.769 61.959 66.150 70.341 74.531 78.722 82.912 87.103 91.293 95.484 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTFO VALUES - 



-0.86472- 
16.71986 
40 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUDEO VALUES- 



0.74775 
240.96634 

150 ° 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-2.69827 




J= ,..,« ihe SOCIAL SCIENCES, VERSION OF C2/C1/72 



08/22/73 



FILE CCC0II13 (CREATION OATE * 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (00«N) VAR I I 1 PER CENT OCCUOIEO UNITS NEGRC OC (ACROSS) VM328 * FAMILIES W LT 18 MEMBER NOT HU 



6.94 11.35 



15.86 20.37 
♦ ♦ ♦ 



24.88 29.39 33.90 



38.41 



96.21 S 



86.594 



76.972 



67.351 



57.729 



48.1C0 



38.4 86 



28. 8*5 



19.243 



9.622 



0.0 



42.92 A7.A3 
1 • •»- ♦----♦. 

• ♦ 



• • • « • 

••• 222* ««2 «2 • « •« • 

. |l ■H |.l l. |. . . .) l .. .|.l. .| ..l. | . . . . | .l. l) .« l t n| ■ t $ 

4.58 9.09 13.60 18.11 22.62 27.13 31.64 



96.215 



86.594 



76.972 



67.351 



57.729 



48.1 CS 



38.486 



28.865 



19.243 



9.6 22 



0.0 



36.16 40.67 45.18 49.69 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FCR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION <R». 
STO ERR OF fST • 
PLOTTFO VALUES • 



0.76698 
21 .36099 

40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUDED VALUES- 



151 



C .588 27 
•20.08173 




SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE IB) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.OCO01 
1.92796 





STATISTtCAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERS.ON c- „*,„.„« 



FILE GC0C1113 (CREATION OATE ■ 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTEPGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR111 PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS NEGRC OC (ACROSS) VAR158 AVE. 4TH CRD. TEST SCORE 

25. 1C 29.30 33. SO 37.70 41.90 46.10 50.30 54. SO 50.70 62.90 
. 4- ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦■ ♦-.•--♦_ — _♦ — __♦-- — ♦« — ♦«___♦_ »-...+-. «..___ +____+___.. 4 ___. f ._ .^, 

96.215 ♦ * 



96.215 



86.594 



4 
• 4 



86.594 



76.972 



76.972 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



40.108 



48.108 



30.406 



38.486 



20.865 



28.865 



19.243 



19.243 



9.622 



9.622 



• • * 4 4 

CO *■ 4 ••444 42 2244 *4 

,».». .■♦ ■ . . . ).■ . . )».. .♦ •.• . »——»—■»■■■ »♦»—>■■■■»■■ ■■»■■■■>■ -■■»-■ ..< ■...)... l»«».-»».»»«.-»-»— -»■»« 

23-.C0 27.20 31.40 35.60 39.00 44.00 40.20 52.40 56.60 60.80 6S.0O 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



00/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUCS - 



-0.67017 
25.73120 
35 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) - 
EXCLUOED VALUES- 



0.45992 
105.75748 

152 o 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE IB) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-2.1 1069 

5 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



OS/22/73 



FILE GCC011I3 (CREATION OATE * 07/16/73) 

SU9FILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF IDClwN) VAR111 PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS NEGRC OC (ACROSS) VARI80 AVE. 6TH 6RO. TEST SCORE 



AC. 65 45.95 
-♦■ 



51.25 56.55 61.85 67. t5 72. A5 



, ♦ ♦ ♦ +. . ♦ ♦ 



96.215 ♦* 



77.75 83.05 88.35 
♦- — -♦ ♦-- — . ♦ «., 



96.215 



86.594 



86.59* 



• * 



76.972 



76.972 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



48.IC8 



48.108 



38.486 



38.486 



28.865 



28.865 



19.24 3 



19.243 



9.622 



9.622 



• « * * * 

0.0 ♦ * • * t • * <• « 2 

...--.- + .-.. «... .--.«..-.-«.-- --♦ -.«.-..-+-..- + .-..+.- — «-_.«.---«.-.. 

38.00 43.30 48.60 53.90 59.20 64.50 69.80 



* 2 • *< 

»■■! ■■ ■■>". .t»w.|i . .i| . i ■ . | -■■-». 

75.10 80.40 85.70 91.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/CI/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTFO VALUES - 



-0.62286 
27.05436 
36 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUOCO VALUES- 



0.38795 
10 1.4731 1 

153 o 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (8) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00002 
■1.41395 

4 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOB THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCC011I3 (CREATION DATE * G7/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGPAM OF (DOWN) VAR1I1 PER CENT OCCUPIEO UNITS NEGRO OC (ACROSS) V AR 20 2 AVE. 8TH GRO. TEST SCORE 



49.70 



57.10 



64.50 



71.90 79.30 



♦ -___♦_-_-♦ -___+- _-_♦__--«. __*__-_^____4. ____♦____♦____♦____♦____» ____+_ 



96.215 



86.70 94.10 101.50 108.90 116.30 

____♦_- — «... — _«._. — _♦____*, 



96.215 



86.594 



86.594 



'76.972 



76.972 



67.351 ♦• 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



48.106 



48.1C8 



38.466 



38.486 



28.865 



28.865 



19.243 



19.243 



9.622 



9.622 



* •• • * 

C.C • * m Z2 ********* * * »< 

,»..«4..»»....>.. .. ti...t....»....> . ... t ....».. ..t. .. . >... .t.. . . | ... . >....| i .. .»». l 4i» . •■ i ..»—.»♦. 

46-.CC 53.40 60.80 68.20 75.60 83.00 90.40 97.80 105.20 112.60 120. CO 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STO FRR OF EST - 
OLOTTfD VALUES - 



-0.70702 
24.71717 
.15 



R SQUAREO 
INTfiRCFPT (A» 
EXCLUOCO VALUES- 



0.49988 
120.46758 
154 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-1.33659 

5 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GICCUIB (CRFATION DATE a 07/16/731 

SUBFILF C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR I 1 1 PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS NEGRO OC (ACROSS) VAR224 AVE. TEST SCORE FOR SCHOOL 



39.40 



44.20 49.00 53.80 56.60 63.40 68.20 73.00 77.60 82.60 

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ -♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ «., 



96.215 



86.594 



86.594 



76.972 



76.9 72 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



46.108 



48.106 



36.486 



38.486 



26.8*5 



19.243 



19.243 



9.622 



9.622 



♦ * 2 • 

0.0 . ♦ * • * 2 2 • * • • * 22* • * 2* 

, »■»-»>. .. . » . . . .| .. ..| . ... |. . ■■> " »■»■ » | ■ I ■ ■ t I ■ ■> ! I ll | ■■ ■ ■■>■■■ ■ | . ... | ....tll l l l »■-. . |-».« «...-»...-« . 

37.00 41.80 46.60 51.40 56.20 61.00 65.80 70.60 75.40 60.20 85. CO 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORPELATION (R»- 
STO FRO OF EST - 
PLOTTED V4LUES - 



-0.66363 
25.38579 
38 



R SOUAREO - 0.44040 

INTERCEPT (A> - 109.220CS 

EXCLUDED VALUES- 1 C E 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-1.56886 

2 






STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES* VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE G00P1113 (CREATION OATE * 07/16/73) 

SU9FILF C2 C3 

SCATTERGMAM OF (Od.N) VAR Ml PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS NEGRC OC (ACROSS) VAR316 AVE.12TM GRO. SCORE 



22.2: 6B.60 
.♦____«. ,_ 

96.215 ♦ # 



115.00 161.40 207.80 



25*. 2 
» ■ ■ ii 4 



■ . - ■»--- 



300.60 347.00 393.40 

. — ♦-- — ♦----♦—. 



439.80 



♦- ♦- — -♦, 



96.215 



86.594 



86.594 



76.972 ♦ 



76.9 72 



67.351 



67.351 



57.729 



57.729 



48.108 



48.1 08 



33.486 



38.486 



2 8.86 5 



28.865 



19.243 



19.243 



9.622 ♦ 



9.622 



t • 

[4 • • • • • 

0.0 *5 •••"•••• #2 *2 •• * * ♦ 

. »»»»»».»■■ | m . | i i . . )....)....(.. . .|... . «... .> .. .. | in i | — .■! . .■ ■) .. ..I.. 1 . I . ... I I ., . ) i . .. |. . . .| ... », 

-1.00 45.40 91.80 138.20 184.60 231.00 277.40 323.80 370.20 416.60 463.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTFD VALUES - 



-0.25822 
32.1*091 

40 



R SQUARED - 0.06668 

INTERCEPT (A) - 33.16573 

EXCLUDED VALUES- JQg ° 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (81 
MISSING VALUES 



0.05383 
-0.05651 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 




FILE SOSSFILE (CREATION DATE ■ 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (Otl»N) VAR111 PER CENT OCCUPIEO UNITS NEGRC OC (ACROSS) AOCRT1 RATE OF A 10 TO OEPENOENT CMILORE 



-0.3* 
, ♦ ♦ ♦•- 



3.20 6.75 10.29 13.84 17.38 20.93 24.47 28. C2 



.+.-- . *. 



31.56 
«... — «., 



76.972 



67.351 



57.729 



4e.l08 



38.486 



28.865 



19.243 



9.622 



* * • •• • 

0.0 ♦** * *5»*2**2* • 

-2.11 1.43 4.98 8.52 12. C6 



96.215 



86.594 



76.972 



67.351 



57.729 



48.10B 



38.4e6 



28.865 



19.243 



9.622 



0.0 



15.61 19.15 



22.70 26.24 



29.79 33.33 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FCR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO ERR OF CS-T • 
PLOTTFO V*LUTS - 



C. 91553 
13.39102 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) - 

CXCLLDfiO VALUFS- 



0.83819 

0.15774 

157 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE IB) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
3.27121 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION Of 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



FILE S*>SSFILE ICREATION OATC ■ 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VARtll PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS KEGRC OC (ACROSS) AFDCRT AIO FAM«S *» OEPENDENT CHILDREN 



96.215 ♦ 



86.594 



76.972 



67.351 



-0.96 1.3* 3.65 5.95 8.26 10.56 12.87 15.17 17.48 19.78 



57, 


729 




I 


48. 


ton 



• • 



38.486 



28.865 



19.243 



9.622 



* • • • • 
0.0 ♦** 4 • 5 2» •• 3 •• 

. .«. — -_♦ 1. «. . | . . ■>. .| ■ . . .»■■»-«■ — ♦--■ 

-2.11 C.19 2.50 4.80 7.11 



96.215 



86.59* 



76.972 



67.3S1 



57.729 



48.108 



38.486 



28.865 



19.243 



9.622 



0.0 



9.41 11.72 14.02 16.33 



18.63 20.94 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FC THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLDTTtn V»LUFS 



0.83914 

in. i06e3 

*0 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) 
exCLLDFO VALUES- 



158 



0.70416 
•0.95846 




SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUFS 



0.00001 
4.64067 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION OATE = 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTEPGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR111 PER CENT OCCUPIED UNITS KEGRC OC (ACROSS) ATOBRT RATE OF A 10 TO DISABLED 



0.31 5.16 10.00 14.85 19.70 



, ».--- + — --♦- ♦ — --«.----+----»-- --+-—- t----*----*- 



24.55 29.39 

...4-- — ♦-—-♦ — . 



34.24 39.09 



43.94 



96.215 ♦ 



86.594 



76.972 



67.351 



57.729 



4P. 108 



38.486 



28.865 



19.243 



9.622 



0.0 



• 2 3 

••4*922* * 

2.11 2.73 7.58 12.43 17.28 



*♦ 96.215 



86.594 



76.972 



67.351 



57.729 



48.108 



38.486 



28.865 



19.243 



9.622 



0.0 



22.12 26.97 31.82 36.67 41.51 46.36 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STD ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUES - 



0.91400 
13.50605 
40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) - 
EXCLUDFD VALUES- 



159 



0.83540 
2.68668 




SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
2.49986 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILE G0001113 <CRFATION OATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE CJ> C3 

SCATTEPGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1.01* PPR 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VAR321 PROPERTY CRIME 



I.C7 



3.21 



22.31 1 



5.35 7.49 9.63 11.77 13.91 16.06 18.20 20.34 

-♦ «. «. «,-- — ♦-- — > n i n '» — --♦----«.-_--♦--—♦_—♦____♦.____♦.____«.__._♦, 

• ♦ 



, ♦•__.»_-__♦__ _-♦_ ___♦___ _«._ - --4.--- -+---- *..--- 4..--+_ __. 



22.311 



2C.cee 



20.oeo 



17.849 



17.849 



15.618 



15.610 



t 3.386 



13.386 



1 1 .155 



11 .155 



8.924 



8.924 



6.693 



6.693 



4.462 



4.462 



2.231 



2.231 



0.0 . ♦ * * 

.+.. -- + -..- +----»----.»-..--«<---- *.---+--._»-- --4.-_.-4. _. 

0.0 2.14 4.28 6.42 8.56 10.70 



~».t ■■■■»■■ . . ) i .n>... « t . . . .t . .. . t . . .i «.»»»♦, 

12.84 14.98 17.13 19.27 21.41 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION IR)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
"LOTTED VALUES - 



0.51799 

5.55438 

40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) - 
EXCLUOEO VALUES- 



C. 26832 
3.64687 
160 c 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00031 
0.64C09 
C 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCC0I113 ICPEAT10N DATE » 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTERGPAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1. 01* PPfi (ACROSS) VAR322 SOCIAL 1 SORG AN I ZAT ION 



5.69 



22.31 1 



1 .«>C 



9.48 13.27 17.06 20 • 8S 24.64 28.43 32.22 36.02 

-♦ ■>■ ' ■ ' )■' ■ ■ > ■ ♦ — --♦ -♦ -♦— — »■ . ». 



22.311 



2C.CBC 



20.080 



17.849 



17.849 



13.618 



I 5.618 



1 3.386 



1 3.386 



1 I .155 



11.1S5 



0.924 



8.924 



6.693 



6.693 



4.462 



4.462 



2.231 



2.231 



CO ♦• * 

,».. .»>. » ■■)■ ■ ■ ■>-■ ■■|»...|« » . .t » «»« l».«.|»«« »l ». .ili ■ ■■ | .. . .|... «| .. i il n ■ .i | i. ♦ 
C .C 3.79 7.5.8 11.37 15.16 18.96 22.75 26.54 30.33 



■ ■ ■ ■ I |n . .|. . i . ).... « . 

34.12 37.91 



O.C 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/C1/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R|- 
STO FRP OF EST - 
PLOTTFf) VALUES ■ 



0.52510 
3.52617 
40 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCFPT (A) 
CXCLU'JCO VALUES- 



161 



0.27373 
4.33912 
C 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE CB) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00023 
0.34113 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCCC11I3 (CREATION DATE * 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (OOWN) VARI08 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1.01* PPR 



0.46 



1 .38 



2.29 



3.21 



4.13 



. ♦- 

22.311 # 



2C.C80 



-♦- ♦• 



(ACROSS) VAR320 CRIME OF VIOLENCE 

5*05 5.96 6.88 7.80 

.- + ---. 4.-.- -«.---_+-- — +----4. „__-«.___. 



17.8A9 



15.618 



I 3.386 



I 1 .155 



8.92* 



6.69 3 



4.462 



2.231 



8.72 
♦ ♦ ♦, 



0.0 + 2 

'O.C C.92 1.83 2.75 3.67 4.59 5.50 6.42 7.3* 8.26 9.17 



22.311 



20.080 



17.849 



15.618 



13.386 



11.155 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO FRR OF EST - 
RLOTTEO VALUES - 



0.73686 
4.3 89 86 

40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUOED VALUES- 



162 



0.54296 
3.84787 
C 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
1.81726 








STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCCC1113 ICREATION DATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTEPGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR1C8 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1 .0 1 ♦ PPR (ACROSS) V AR 1 2 PEP CENT HUSBAND-WIFE FAMILIES 



55.674 59.864 64.055 68.245 72.436 76.626 60.817 85.007 89.198 93.389 



22.31 1 



2C.080 



17.849 



15.61 R 



13.386 ♦* 



1 1 .155 



22.311 



20.080 



17.849 



15.618 



13.386 



11.155 



8.924 



8.924 



6.693 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



CO ♦ 

. »,...t .■■■!»■■■■ 

53.578 57.769 






♦ 2 

* * 

* * 

* * * 



... +-.-.4.-- --».--.»----»--.- + -... «-_-+ -_..»-.-.«..- .-+----4. ... + ---_« -♦-- ♦----♦. 

61.959 66.150 70.341 74.531 78.722 82.912 87.103 91.293 95.484 



4.4 62 



2.231 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION IR)- 
STO fQR OF EST • 
Ol OTTFD VALU C S • 



-0.82653 
3.6551C 
40 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUOCO VALUES- 



163 



0.68315 
48.37541 

C 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE C8> 
MISSING VALUES 



0.C0001 
■0.5C307 



— - 1 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE G0001113 ICREATION OATE a 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTtRGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1*01+ PPR 



(ACROSS) VAR328 X FAMILIES W LT 18 MEMBER NOT HU 






6.64 



11.35 15. 86 



22.311 ♦ 



2C.C8C 



17.8*9 



15.618 



I 3.386 



I 1 .155 



20.37 24.68 29.39 33.90 38.41 42.92 47.43 
♦-- 4---- ♦----♦-—♦ - + -.-.«. — ._«.. ___+____ + _. »_«.___.4__. _«.____ 4. 

* 



• • • 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



CO ♦•• 

4.59 9.09 13.60 18.11 22.62 



22.311 



20.080 



17.849 



IS. 618 



13.386 



11 .155 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



0.0 



27.13 31.64 



—.4..— ♦-— ------ *.-..- 4.... *...-- 4. 

36.16 40.67 45.18 49.69 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOP THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 






STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION IB)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTFD VALUES - 



0.74523 
4.32987 

40 



R SOUAREO - C. 55537 

INTERCEPT (A) - -0.41519 

CXCLUOED VALUES- 164 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <B> 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
0.36539 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCC01113 (CREATION OATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1.01* PPR (ACROSS) VAR13S AVE. 4TH GRO. TEST SCORE 

25.10 29.30 33.50 37.70 41.90 46.10 50.30 54.50 SB. 70 62.90 

22.311 ♦ * ♦ 



20.080 



17.849 



15.618 



13.386 



1 1 .155 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



* • * 

« 2 



0.0 . ♦ • * 

.+-.--4-——+ — .»---- »----+..---»--- .«.-.. + ____+____ +.___«.___ -*-- --».- __4. -_-«..-_- 4._. ..»..-.>..- _♦____♦. 

23. CO 27. 2C 31.40 35.60 39.80 44.00 48.20 52.40 56.60 60.80 65.00 



22.311 



20.080 



17.849 



15.618 



13.386 



11 .155 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUES - 



-0.71519 
4.76265 
35 



R SQUARED - 0.51150 

INTERCEPT (A) - 24.69244 

EXCLUDED VALUES- Jg5 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-0.43484 



_- 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES* VERSION OF 02/01/72 



06/22/73 






FILE GCC0M13 (CREATION OATE ■ C7/16/73I 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTEOGPAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1.014- PPR (ACROSS) VAR180 AVE. 6TM GRO . TEST SCORE 



40.65 45.95 51.25 56.55 61.85 67.15 72.45 77.75 83.05 88.35 

.♦ ♦ «. ♦ ♦ «. «. f, »«. , * «.__ .»__ «. -4— ♦ ♦- 4--- ♦ 4 4-. 

22.311 4* + 



22.311 



20.08C 



20.oeo 



17.849 



17.649 



15.618 



15.610 



1 3.386 



13.386 



1 I. 155 



II .155 



8.924 



8.924 



6.693 



6.693 



4.462 



4.462 



2.231 



* * 
* 



2.231 



0.0 4 * 44 
.+_._-+.-.- 4.----*. ---+----«.-- --+.-.-«.---. 4---. 4-- --»--— 4----4----4-- --4---- 4---- 4----4----4----4-- 4-. 

38.00 43.30 48.60 53.90 59.20 64.50 69.80 75.10 80.40 85.70 91.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLDTTCD VALUES - 



-0.71902 


R SOUAREO 




0.51700 


4.74363 


INTERCEPT (A) 




2S.364S2 


36 


EXCLUOED VALUES- 


166 






SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (0) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-0.32217 

4 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/22/73 



FILE GCreill3 (CREATION DATE ■ 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR1C8 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1.01* PP R (ACROSS) VAR202 AVE. 8TH GRO. TEST SCORE 



22.31 1 



49. 7C 57.10 64.50 71. 00 79.30 86.70 9A.10 1 1 . SO 108.90 116.30 

.--♦ ♦.____«.____♦_ » ■ >- » . «| » — »..««|. l I. ■ |l.l. » . . l . « . .. . t.. .. t. . ♦—»-»! ni l ) ..!! > — ■ ->»--.», 



22.311 



2c.ee* 



20.0 80 



17.849 



♦ 17.849 



15.618 



15.618 



1 3.3P6 



13.386 



I 1 .155 



11.155 



8.924 



8.924 



6.693 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



* 



• * 

* 



4.4 62 



2.231 



CO ♦ * * 

. !■■■. >■■■■>■■ ■ ■I n ii|iiiit i . ■ [ ■ ■ ■ ■| «»i . | ..i .|.«ii | i i i ) hi i|i ■■» ■ Iiii t i»«..-«...i> .i.|i.. . i», 

46.r0 53.40 60.80 68.20 75.60 83. CO 90.40 97.80 105.20 112.60 120.00 



0.0 






STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRFLATION (R)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUCS - 



-0.76471 
4.41747 

35 



R SOUAREO - 0.58479 

INTERCEPT (A) - 28.1940? 

EXCLUOED VALUES- 167 C 



08/22/73 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



O.0C0O1 
-0.28356 

5 



m—m 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILE GCCC1113 (CREATION DATE * 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN! VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1. 01* PPR 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS! VAR22* AVE. TEST SCORE FOR SCHOOL 



39. 4C A*. 20 A9.00 53.60 56.60 63.40 68.20 73.00 77.60 82.60 

. ♦-- ♦--—♦—---♦----♦----♦——♦-- — ♦----♦----♦— -—♦■-— •-♦•—-♦- — -♦ — —♦----♦.— »-* — -_4.____ «._«-_«.____ ^. # 

22.311 ♦* ♦ 



22.311 



2C.C8C 



20.060 



17.849 



17.849 



15.618 



15.618 



1 3.3P6 



13.386 



1 1.155 



11.155 



8.924 



8.9 24 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



06/22/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION <*»)• 
STD ERR OF EST • 
PLOTTEO VALUES • 



-0.74649 
4.42864 

38 



R SOUAREO 
INTERCEPT (Al 
EXCLUOEO VALUES- 



168 



0.55725 
26.70931 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
-0.34612 

2 



6.693 



4.462 



* • • 

* 4 



4.462 



2.231 



2.231 



0.0 - ♦ 4 44 

,♦ — --------------------- .»----«..- -.-«_--- «.____+__-_ 4.-.. »___. «--- _♦-_ --«.-- — 4. ...«....«-... >..-.«.-..- «.. 

37.00 41. 8C 46.60 51.40 56.20 61. CO 65.80 70.60 75.40 80.20 85.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 

FILF GP00U13 ICRFATION DATE = 07/16/73) 

SUBFILE C? C3 

SCATTCPGCAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1.01* PPR 



08/22/73 



(ACROSS) VAR318 AVE.12TH GRO. SCORE 



22. 2C 68.60 115. OC 161.40 207.80 254.20 300.60 347.00 393.40 439.80 

. ♦-- — ♦• f ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ -♦ ♦ ..4.— _«. «.-_..+ — __«. ♦____.».__ «.___«. ♦___._4.__.__4.. 

22.311 ♦ • «. 



22.311 



2C.C80 



20.080 



17.849 



17.849 



IS. 618 



IS. 618 



1 3.386 



13.386 



1 1.155 



11 .155 



6.924 



6.693 



6.693 



4.462 ♦* 



• » • 

* * » 



4.462 



• * 

* • 



2.231 ♦• 



2.231 



0.0 ♦ * * 

. 4_-_-4-__-4___-4--_-4.-_.4_. — 4___-4_— _4_.__4_---4.___4-_._4.-__4 __— 4- — 4— . 4__-.4-.-_ ♦— -_4 — -4. 

-1.00 45.40 91.80 138.20 184.60 231.00 277.40 323.80 370.20 416.60 463.00 



0.0 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/22/73 



STATISTICS. . 

CORRELATION <R)- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PlITTCO VALUFS - 



-C. 36012 
6.C5775 

40 



R SOUAREO 
INTCRCEPT (A) - 
exCLUOEO VALUES- 



169 



0.12969 
10.84928 
C 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.01123 
-0.01592 







— - 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION DATE = 07/C6/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTFRGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS »ITH 1.01* PPR (ACROSS) AOCRT 1 RATE OF A IO TO OEPENOENT CMILDRE 



-0.3* 3.20 6.75 10.29 



13.64 
...4—. 



17.38 20.93 24.47 28.02 31.56 



22.311 ♦ 



20.CB0 



17.849 ♦ 



13.618 



1 3.386 



1 1.155 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



• « * 



• • • 



* 



0.0 ♦ • * 

-2.11 1.43 4.98 8.52 12. C 6 15.61 19.15 



22.311 



20.oeo 



17.849 



13.618 



13.386 



11.135 



8.924 



6.693 



4.4C2 



2.231 



0.0 



22.70 26.24 29.79 33.33 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FC«= THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STO ERR OK EST - 
PLOTTFO VALUFS 



0.87167 
3.18243 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLUDED VALUES- 



0.75980 
3.49232 



170 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 



MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
0.60750 




STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



08/24/73 



FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION OATE ■ 07/06/73) 

SUBFILF C2 C3 

SCATTERGPAM OF (DOWN) VAR10B PER CENT UNITS *ITH 1.01* PPB (ACROSS) AFOCRT AID FAM'S * OEPENDENT CHILDREN 



-C.96 



1 .34 



3.65 5.95 

._♦__ __ + _- — ♦- — 



8.26 10.56 



22.311 ♦ 



20.08C 



12.87 15.17 



17.48 19.78 



17.849 



15.618 



1 3.386 



1 I .155 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



« * * • 

2 



« 
0.0 ♦ * * 

-2.11 C.19 2.50 4.80 7.11 9.4 1 11.72 14.02 16.33 



22.311 



20.oeo 



17.849 



15.618 



13.386 



11.155 



8.924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.23 



; 



18.63 20.94 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/0I/72 



08/24/73 



STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R)- 
STD ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUES - 



0.78211 
4.C4634 

40 



R SQUARED 
INTERCEPT (A) 
EXCLLDED VALUES- 



171 



0.61169 
3.36293 





SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE <B) 
MtSSlNG VALUES 



0.00001 
0.84367 





STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF C2/01/72 



08/24/73 



FILE SPSSFILE (CREATION DATE " 07/06/73) 

SUBFILE C2 C3 

SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAR108 PER CENT UNITS WITH 1.01* PPf 



(ACROSS) ATOBRT RATE OF AID TO OISABLEO 



0.31 



5.16 10.00 



M.es 

— -♦_-. 



22.31 1 



20.060 



17.649 



15.616 



13.386' 



1 1.155 



8. 924 



6.693 



4.462 



2.231 



19.70 24.55 29.39 34.24 39.09 43.94 



* 
2 • 

• •• * 

2 

• « 



0.0 ♦ * * 

-2.lt 2.73 7.56 12.43 17.28 22.12 26.97 31.82 36.67 



22.311 



20.080 



17.849 



15.618 



13.386 



11.155 



6.9 24 



6.693 



4.4 62 



2.231 



0.0 



41. SI 46.36 



STATISTICAL PACKAGE FCR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. VERSION OF 02/01/72 



06/24/73 






STATISTICS.. 

CORRELATION (R>- 
STO ERR OF EST - 
PLOTTED VALUES - 



0.90518 
2.75994 
• 



R SQUAREO 
INTERCEPT (A) 

EXCLLDFn VALUES" 



0.81934 
3.84062 

172 c 



SIGNIFICANCE 
SLOPE (B) 
MISSING VALUES 



0.00001 
0.4e291 





REFERENCES 



1. Agoc, C. "Social Indicators: Selected Readings," The Annals of the American Academy 

of Political and Social Science , 1970. 

2. Anderson, A. A. "Intelligence and Occupational Mobility," Journal of Political Economy , 

60: 218-239 (June, 1952) . 

3. Banfield, E. C. The Unheavenly City , Boston . New York: Little, Brown and Co., 1970. 

4. Bauer, R. A. "Societal Feedback," in Gross, ed. Social Intelligence for America's Future : 

Explorations in Societal Problems , 1969. 

5. Bauer, R. A., ed. Social Indicators . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966. 

6. Bell, D. "The Adequacy of Our Concepts," in Gross, ed. A Great Society ? . New York: 

Basic Books, Inc., 1968. 

7. Bell, W. "The Social Areas of the San Francisco Bay Region," American Sociological Review , 

XVIII (February, 1953). 

8. Berelson, B. and G. A. Steiner. Human Behavior : An Inventory of Scientific Findings . 

New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964. 

9. Berry, B. J. L. Comparative Factorial Ecology . Supplement to Economic Geography , Vol. 47, 

No. 12. Worcester: Clark University, 1971. 

10. Berry, B. J. L. and F. Horton. Geographical Perspectives on Urban Systems . Englewood 

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970. 

11. Beyer, G. H. Housing and Society . New York: The MacMillan Company, 1965. 



173 



12. Biderman, A. D. "Social Indicators and Goals," in Bauer, ed. Social Indicators . 

13. Blake, R. R. , et al . "Housing Architecture and Social Interaction," Sociometry , 1956. 

14. Blalock, H. M. Social Statistics . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. 

15. Bradburn, N. M. The Structure of Psychological Well-Being . Chicago: Aldine, 1965. 

16. Bradburn, N. M. and D. Caplovitz. Reports on Happiness . Chicago: Aldine, 1965. 

17. Cantril, A. H. and C. W. Roll, Jr. Hopes and Fears of the American People . New York: 

Universe Books, 1970. 

18. Cattel, R. B. Factor Analysis . New York: Harper Brothers, 1952. 

19. Chapin, F. S., Jr. Urban Land Use Planning . Urbana: Univeristy of Illinois, 1970. 

20. Chein, Isador, et al. The Road to H: Narcotics , Delinquency , and Social Policy . 

New York: Basic Books, 1970. 

21. Cohen, W. J. "An Introductory Commentary," Toward a Social Report , U. S. Department 

of Health, Education, and Welfare, Ann Arbor Paperbacks, ed. Ann Arbor: University 
of Michigan Press, 1970. 

22. Collins, Richard W. "Processes, Policies, and Problems of the Urban Renewal, Community 

Renewal, and Model Cities Programs." Master's Essay, Wayne State University, 1971. 

23. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality of Life Indicators - A Review of the_ State-of-the 

Art and Guidelines Derived to Assist in_ Developing Environmental Indicators . Washing- 
ton", "dTc.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 



174 



24 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring. The Quality of Life 

Concept - A Potential New Tool for Decision-Makers . Washington, D. C: U. S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office, 1973. 

25. Faris , E. L. and H. W. Dunham. Mental Disorders i n Urban Areas . Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press, 1939. 

26. Fried, M. and J. Levin. "Some Social Functions of Urban Slums," as listed in B. J. Frieden, 

R. Morris, eds. Urban Planning and Social Policy . New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. 

27. Frieden, B. J., R. Morris, ed. Urban Planning and Social Policy . New York: Basic Books, 

Inc., 1968. 

28. Fuchsberg , R. R. "Family Income in Relation to Selected Health Characteristics," Health, Edu- 

cation, and Welfare Public Health Services, Series 10, No. 2., 1963. 

29. Gainesville, City of, Charter Laws, Section 84(f) and (g) (1960) , p. 70.18. 

30. Gainesville Police Department, Planning and Research, "'Beat study' from January 1, 1970, 

through December 31, 1970," pp. 4-5. 

31. Gallup, George H. Fourth Annual Gallup Poll of Public Attitudes Toward Education , April 21, 

1972. *~ 

32. Gans, H. J. People and Plans . New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. 

33. Gans, H. J. Social and Physical Planning for the Elimination of Poverty , as listed in B. J. 

Frieden, R. Morris, eds. Urban Planning and Social Policy . New York: Basic Books, Inc., 
1968. 

34. Goode, W. J. "Economic Factors and Marital Stability," American Sociological Review , 16:802-812, 

1951. 



175 



35. Gray, Robert J. "Social Well-Being in Tampa, Florida: A Case Study in the Use of Social 

Indicators at the Intra-City Level." Master's Thesis, University of Florida, 1972. 

36. Greer, S. Urban Renewal and American Cities . Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 1965. 

37. Gross, B. M. , ed. Social Intelligence for America's Future . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 

1969. 

38. Gutman, Robert, ed. People and Buildings . New York: Basic Books, 1972. 

39. Harman, Harry H. Modern Factor Analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. 

40. Haufler, Arline. "Mental Health May Depend on Economic Situation," Gainesville Sun , Septem- 

ber 17, 1972, p. 9-B. 

41. Hicks, N. "Economy May Spur Mortality," Gainesville Sun , November 20, 1972, p. 4-C. 

42. Hillery, George A., Jr. "The Folk Village: A Comparative Analysis," Rural Sociology , 26335-353 

(December, 1971) as listed in Merrill, Society and Culture , 1965. 

43. Hollingshead, A. B. , and F. C. Redlich. Social Class and Mental Illness : A Community Study . 

New York: Wiley Bros., 1958. 

14. Housing Code, Chapter 15A, Code of Ordinances , City of Gainesville, Florida, 1960. 

45. Hudson Guild Neighborhood House and New York University Center for Human Relations and Com- 

munity Studies, Human Relations in Chelsea, 1960. Report of the Chelsea Housing and Human 
Relations Cooperative Project. 

46. Inspection Records of the Housing Division, Department of Community Development, City of Gaines- 

ville, Florida, 1972. 



176 



47. Jones, M. V. , and M. J. Flax. The Quality of Life in Metropolitan Washington , D. C : Some 

Statistical Benchmarks . Washington, D. C: Urban Institute, 1970. 

48. Kahl, J. A. "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys," Harvard Educational 

Review 23, No. 3, 1953, pp. 186-203. 

49. Lee, Philip R. "Health and Well-Being," The Annals of the_ AAPS , Social Goals and Indicators for 

American Society , Vol. II (September, 1967) , 194. 

50. Lindesmith, A. R. and A. L. Strauss. Social Psychology . New York: Holt Rinehart and 

Winston, 1966. 

51. Maslow , A. H. Toward A Psychology of Being . New York: Van Nostrand, Reinhold Company. 

52. Merrill, F. E. Society and Culture . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. 

53. Michelson, W. Man and His Urban Environment : A Sociological Approach . Reading: Addison- 

Wesley Company, 1970. 

54. Michigan Office of Planning Coordination, Bureau of Policies and Programs. Social Reporting 

in Michigan : Problems and Issues . Lansing: Wayne State University Center for Urban 
Studies, 1970." 

55. Miller, D. C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement . 2nd ed. New York: David 

McKay Co., 1970. 

56. Miller, S. M. et al. "Poverty, Inequality, and Conflict," in Bertram M. Bross , ed. Social 

Intelligence for America's Future . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , 1969. 

57. Myers, J. K. , and B. H. Roberts. Family and Class Dynamics in Mental Illness . New York: 

John Wigley and Sons, Inc. , 1959. 



177 



58. Nie, Norman, Dale Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences . 

New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970. 

59. Office of the Governor, the Governor's Task Force on Housing and Community Development, 

and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, "Housing in Florida," 4:84. 

60. Perle, E. D. Social Reporting in Michigan : Problems and Issues . Office of Planning Co- 

ordination, Bureau of Policies and Programs, Technical Report A- 37, State of Michigan, 
1970. 

61. Perloff, H. W. , ed. The Quality of the Urban Environment . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 

1969. 

62. Petty, R. M. "Crowding: A Selected Bibliography," Council of Planning Librarians , No. 240, 

1971. 

63. Proshansky, H. M., et al , eds. Environmental Psychology : Man and His Physical Setting . 

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970. 

64. Rein, Martin. "Social Science and the Elimination of Poverty," Journal of the American 

Institute of Planners , XXXIII: 3 (May, 1967), 149. 

65. Rosenberg, G. "City Planning Theory and the Quality of Life," American Behavioral 

Scientist , 9, 3-7. 

66. Schnore, Leo, and James D. Cowhig. "Some Correlates of Reported Health in Metropolitan 

Centers," Social Problems , Table 3, 225 (1959-60). 

67. Schorr, A. L. "Housing and Its Effects," in Proshansky, Itteison, and Rivlin. Environ- 

mental Psychology : Man and His Physical Setting . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and 
Winston, Inc. , 1970. 



178 
f 



68. Schorr, Alvin. "Slums and Social Insecurity," Research Report No. 1, Division of Research 

and Statistics Administration (Washington, D. C, 1963), p. 31. 

69. Sewell, W. H. "Social Class and Childhood Personality," Sociometry 24, 1962. 

70. Sheldon, E. , and W. E. Moore. Indicators of Social Change : Concepts and Measurements . 

New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968. 

71. Shevky, Eshref, and Marianne Williams. The Social Areas of Los Angeles : Analysis and 

Typology . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1949. 

72. Shevky, Eshref, and Wendell Bell. Social Area Analysis : Theory , Illustrative Applica- 

tion and Computational Procedures . Stanford: Stanford Press, 1955. 

73. Shibutoni, Timotsu. Society and Personality . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. 

74. Sills, D. C, ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences , 4, 301, 1968. 

75. Stuart, Darwin G. Urban Indicators : Thei r Role in_ Planning . Planning Advisory Service 

Report #281, 1972. 

76. Tampa City Demonstration Agency (CDA) . Interim Report , First Action Year , 1969. 

77. Tampa City Demonstration Agency. Annual Report , Second Action Year , 1971. 

78. Thompson, W. R. A Preface to Urban Economics . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. 

79. Thorndike, E. L. Your City . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1939. 

80. Thurstone, L. L. Multiple Factor Analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. 



179 






81. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing , 1970 , Vol . I, General Housing Character- 

istics , Florida . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 

82. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing : 1960 , Vol . J[, States and Small Areas , 

Florida . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 

83. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing : 1950 , Vol . J_, General Characteristics , 

Florida . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1952. 

84. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing : 1970 , Detailed Housing Characteristics , 

Florida . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 

85. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and Housing : 1970 , Census Tracts , 

Gainesville , Florida . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 

86. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population : 1970 , General Social and Economic 

Characteristics , Florida . Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 

87. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Toward a Social Report . Washington, 

D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 

88. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Model Cities Program : A 

History and Analysis of the Planning Process in Three Cities . Washington, D. C: 
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 

89. U. S. Department of Justice. "Uniform Crime Reports," (Washington, 1970), p. 5. 

90. U. S. President, Commission on National Goals. Goals for Americans : Programs for 

Action in the Sixties. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. 



180 



91. Wilner, D. M. , et al. The Housing Environment and Family Life . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

Press, 1962, pp. 241-252, as listed in Gutman, R., ed. People and Buildings . New 
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972, pp. 189-201. 

92. Wilson, J. O. Quality of Life in the_ United States - An Excursion into the New Frontier 

of Socio-Economic Indicators . Kansas City: Midwest Research Institute, 1969. 

93. Wilson, J. Q. , ed. The Metropolitan Enigma . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 

1968. 

94. Wingo, Low don. The Quality of Life : Toward a Microeconomic Definition . Urban Studies 

10:1, University of Glasgow (February, 1973), p. 4. 



181 



L 




3UN>Po5557 2feW 



I 



Do.